Opinion ID: 2324551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the grant of a summary judgment

Text: [¶ 6] We review the grant of a summary judgment motion by evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered. Cottle Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Farmington, 1997 ME 78, ¶ 11, 693 A.2d 330, 333 (citing Gonzales v. Commissioner, Dep't of Public Safety, 665 A.2d 681, 682 (Me.1995)). Since Thibodeau would have the burden of proof at trial, he must have presented enough evidence to have withstood a motion for directed verdict. Keyes Fibre Co. v. Lamarre, 617 A.2d 213, 214 (Me.1992). [¶ 7] Here, there are no issues of triable fact and the grant of a summary judgment was proper. Thibodeau fell on property leased by Port Side, not by Victor. Assuming arguendo that Thibodeau could pierce the corporate veil, he still could not reach Victor who did not personally own shares in Port Side. [2] See LaBelle v. Crepeau, 593 A.2d 653, 655 (Me.1991) (noting that only shareholders will be liable when the corporate entity is disregarded). It would be not only improbable, but also impossible to find liability against Victor on these facts. Simply put, Thibodeau sued the wrong party. The Superior Court correctly granted a summary judgment. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. CLIFFORD, J., dissenting. [¶ 8] Because in my view the trial court should have granted Gary Thibodeau's motion to amend his complaint prior to addressing summary judgment, I respectfully dissent. When faced with both a motion for a summary judgment and a Rule 15(a) motion to amend pleadings, considerations of finality and judicial economy suggest that a court should dispose of the pending Rule 15(a) motion prior to entertaining a summary judgment. Kelly v. Michaud's Ins. Agency, Inc., 651 A.2d 345, 346 (Me.1994). [¶ 9] I would vacate the judgment and remand to the Superior Court to allow Thibodeau to amend his complaint.