slapp back
Sun 10.18.20
Next Thursday the 22nd at 2 in the afternoon I will be at trial on my eviction case. But most likely it will be postponed because of the anti-slapp motion that I filed last month in which I point out that I’m being evicted because Landlord wants to stop my suit against it maintenance company. The motion freezes the eviction case till the motion is ruled upon. I await the judge’s word on setting up a hearing. The most famous anti-slapp case in Maine was filed by Ralph Nader because the Democratic Party tried to keep him off the ballot and stop him from running for the presidency. One is being silenced for speaking out in a slapp suit; the initials stand for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
Below is my reply to opposing party’s response to my anti-slapp motion.
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S
SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS, 14, MRSA §556
COMES NOW, Respondent Saint Pierre respectfully submitting this reply in support of its motion for a Special Motion to Dismiss
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. Respondent was served a Forcible Entry and Detainer complaint on July 6, 2020 to which she filed a response where she noted that she had not been given a 30-day Notice of Termination. She also included with it a continuance motion to stay the FED action till her own suit against Landlord’s agent, docket # DC 19-386 could be heard. The motion was denied.
2. A first affidavit was filed on August 18, 2020
3. Respondent filed a Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Insufficiency of Process for the lack of a 30-day notice. The court has yet to respond to this motion.
Petitioner failed to respond to the motion thus waiving all objections to it.
4. A 2nd affidavit was filed on September 9, 2019
5. At this same time Respondent filed a Partial Summary Judgment -- Judicial Estoppel motion for the reason that Landlord may not use documents whose existence its agent repeatedly denied in another court. The court has yet to respond to this motion.
Petitioner failed to respond to the motion thus waiving all objections to it.
6. In its Anti-Slapp motion Respondent included a Retaliatory Eviction motion to which Petitioner has failed to respond thus waving all objections to it.
7. Respondent has subpoenaed Landlord for its contract between it and its maintenance company for services. She also subpoenaed Landlord to appear at eviction trial. Said documents were served by the Sheriff on October 9, 2020 at one of Landlord’s corporate offices. Petitioner’s counsel warned Respondent against going to landlord’s office to collect requested document as stated in subpoena, and stated that he will not permit subpoenas’ directive for any number of groundless reasons.
PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
8. Petitioner did not respond to the allegations in the motion in the manner required. He fails to explain the reasons why the eviction is not a Slapp suit. He states that Respondent’s “claims for injunctive relief and monetary relief are fully preserved in the civil suit pending against Preservation Management Inc. et al.” Not if she is evicted, the matter is then moot. Does she then file a another suit in Superior Court as Petitioner brings forth in the second graph page 5 of its response? Isn’t that part of what a Slapp suit is designed to accomplish, that is, to keep Respondent tied in legal battles till she wearies and walks away from the matter?
9. Respondent’s motion for extension of time is not on a par with motion for continuance as Petitioner asserts. Her request is valid in that she was never given a Notice of Termination and needed the extra time to respond properly to the FED action. The extension of time would not have delayed the upcoming trial on October 22, 2020 had Petitioner responded in a timely fashion with an appropriate defense to Respondent’s Special Motion to Dismiss. He chose instead to respond at the last possible moment, 21 days after motion was filed.
10. Since Respondent has filed her suit docket #DC 19-386 there has been no end to the disrespect, the threats and harassment she has endured by Landlord’s agent. Landlord was informed (see ex. D, 2nd affidavit) about it, but it was not stopped. Other than the complaints about the yard and the placing of a gazebo on it the rest of the complaints do not merit eviction and evermore banishment from subsidized housing. An explanation of the reason of instant suit may be found in a letter that Respondent sent to maintenance company”s Vice President, Regional Manager, and Northfield Green’s Manager dated May 1, 2020, (see attached.)
11. In it Respondent informs maintenance company, now that she has received the HUD Occupancy Handbook from their regional offices in Boston, that only Landlord may create House Rules; maintenance company has no authority over her, but is bound by landlord’s rules. Landlord has relegated that duty. This evidence provided impetus to Respondent’s case along with any number of blunders committed by maintenance company. It cast doubt on the possibility of the company resolving Respondent’s case in their favor. Hence the eviction.
12. Per MRSA 11, §2-210 (2), “ . . . [A]ll rights of either seller or buyer can be assigned except where the assignment would materially change the duty of the other party, or increase materially the burden of risk imposed on the buyer or seller by the contract, or impair materially the chance of obtaining return performance.” See also section (4) and section (5) of §2-210.
WHEREFORE, having responded to allegations contained in Petitioner’s Response, Respondent prays for the following:
(a) That Petitioner’s Response be dismissed as insufficient,
(b) that Respondent is granted the relief requested in its motion,
(c) that Petitioner reimburse the Court for the two subpoenas it has underwritten on
Respondent’s behalf.
(d) For such other and further relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.
