Opinion ID: 1927000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: independent bias claim

Text: [¶ 6] Adelman argues that the appellants were entitled to bring an independent claim of bias pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2605 (1996). [4] WMTW and the Town assert that the court properly struck the bias count because bias may be addressed in a Rule 80B appeal. We review motions to strike for abuse of discretion. See McNutt v. Johansen, 477 A.2d 738, 740 (Me.1984) (reviewing denial of motion to strike default judgment for abuse of discretion); Michaud v. Steckino, 390 A.2d 524, 531 (Me.1978) (reviewing denial of motion to strike testimony for abuse of discretion). [¶ 7] Rule 80B addresses appeals of government action, including the issue of bias by municipal planning boards. See M.R. Civ. P. 80B; Ryan v. Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973, (Me.1990) (addressing issue of board member bias in Rule 80B appeal). Rule 80B(d) allows an appellant to add facts to the administrative record for a trial of the facts when an appellant establishes, with sufficient particularity, the need for a trial of such facts. See Baker's Table, Inc. v. City of Portland, 2000 ME 7, ¶ 9, 743 A.2d 237, 241. The issue of bias is properly addressed in the Rule 80B appeal because 80B(d) provides a specific mechanism for augmenting the record if necessary to show bias. See id. [5] Adelman's allegations of bias arose from the Planning Board's conduct concerning the issuance of the conditional use permit. These allegations are (and were) properly addressed in the Rule 80B appealnot in an independent claim of bias, which would be duplicative of the Rule 80B appeal. The Superior Court, therefore, did not exceed the bounds of its discretion by striking the independent bias claim.