LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROW et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LOBSTER 207, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARREN B. PETTEGROW, ANTHONY
D. PETTEGROW, JOSETTE G.
PETTEGROW, STEPHEN M.
PEABODY, POSEIDON CHARTERS
INC., and TRENTON BRIDGE
LOBSTER POUND, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:19-CV-00552-LEW
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 83). Defendants ask me to reconsider the partial denial of their motion to dismiss the
RICO claims (Counts I & II), specifically with respect to Defendants Anthony and Josette
Pettegrow and Poseidon Charters. While reconsideration is not an opportunity to “reargue
theories previously advanced and rejected,” Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 29-
30 (1st Cir. 2006), a party may refine a request for relief when it perceives that the court
overlooked one of its contentions. 	As an interlocutory order, the order on the motion to
dismiss comes within my “discretionary power to alter it at any time prior to the entry of
the final decree.” Farr Man & Co. v. M/V Rozita, 903 F.2d 871, 875 (1st Cir. 1990). See
also Nieves-Luciano v. Hernandez-Torres, 397 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005) (“Interlocutory
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 109 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
orders such as these ‘remain open to trial court reconsideration’ until the entry of
judgment.”).
When I first considered Defendants’ motion to dismiss, I contemplated dismissal of
the RICO claims to the extent they are asserted against Poseidon Charters, but I interpreted
the motion as advancing a united front on behalf of the Pettegrows, Trenton Bridge, and
Poseidon Charters. On further review, it is evident that Defendants challenged Plaintiff’s
allegations concerning the tubed lobster scheme for failing to show that “each” defendant
“had a role.” Motion to Dismiss at 16 (ECF No. 45). Given this argument, and given that
I have no basis other than conjecture to understand what, if any, relationship Poseidon
Charters had to the tubed lobster scheme, I will dismiss Counts I and II, with regard to
Poseidon Charters, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to allege a connection on or
before the deadline to amend the pleadings, or thereafter, in the event there is newly
discovered evidence to support such a connection. 	However, as to Anthony and Josette
Pettegrow, I remain persuaded that the allegations provide a plausible basis to infer that
they were participants in the alleged scheme, the particulars of which are set forth with
sufficient detail to satisfy Rule 9. 	“Determining the plausibility of a claim is a context-
specific task that requires the court ‘to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.’”
Capergy US, LLC v. SAG Realty, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00214-JDL, 2019 WL 267700, at *3
(D. Me. Jan. 18, 2019) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). Finding it
plausible that the conduct at issue is attributable to the principles of Trenton Bridge is in
keeping with this maxim.
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 109 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 83) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. 	Counts I and II are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to
Defendant Poseidon Charters.
SO ORDERED .
Dated this 21st day of July, 2020.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 109 Filed 07/21/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>