Opinion ID: 2353392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of the 80B Count

Text: The plaintiff filed his complaint on January 22, 1982. The plaintiff's brief and the record were due forty days after January 22, 1982, or March 3, 1982. M.R.Civ.P. 80B(e) and (g). The plaintiff filed neither a brief nor a record nor a request for an extension of time by that date. Instead, twenty days after the deadline, the plaintiff moved for an indefinite extension of time. In support of his motion, the plaintiff stated that (1) he had no transcript of the Commissioners' meeting, (2) the Count II 80B review should proceed with the Count I section 1983 action at one unified pace, (3) the plaintiff will move for a trial of the facts pursuant to 80B(d) but has not yet so moved because no discovery has been conducted, and (4) the Supreme Judicial Court did not intend to thwart judicial review of governmental action through filing procedures prescribed by the pertinent rules. On October 20, 1982, the justice denied the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file briefs and record and granted defendants' motion to dismiss Count II. The justice ruled that Haskell had not satisfied the M.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(2) requirement of a showing that his failure to fulfill the Rule 80B(e) and (g) time requirements was due to excusable neglect. On the date of the dismissal of Count II, nine months after the filing of the complaint, Haskell had yet to file his brief or the record for Rule 80B review. On a showing of good cause, the court may extend the Rule 80B time limits. Rule 80B(g). The motion for a time extension and the showing of good cause must occur prior to the prescribed filing deadline. Such motions made after the deadlines are governed instead by Rule 6(b)(2), which provides for enlargement of time periods upon a motion made after the expiration of a specified period on a showing of excusable neglect. [10] As the justice correctly noted, we have recently reiterated, in a case involving Rule 73(a), that the standard of excusable neglect is strict; extensions of time for filing notices of appeal should be limited to extraordinary cases. Young v. Sturdy Furniture Co., 441 A.2d 320, 321 (Me.1982). Further, when the neglect is that of the party charged to act, some extraordinary circumstance must be proved to justify the neglect. State v. One 1977 Blue Ford Pick-Up Truck, 447 A.2d 1226, 1231 (Me.1982). It is clear that no showing has been made that Haskell's failure to obtain a transcript of the Commissioners' meeting within nine months of the filing of his complaint was due to extraordinary circumstances. It appears that the failure was due to counsel's unexplained neglect to comply with the clearly articulated requirements of the rules of procedure. The entry is Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal of Count I of the Complaint vacated and remanded to Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Dismissal of Count II of the Complaint affirmed. All concurring.