Geisinger v. Law Offices of Anthony J. Sineni II, LLC

(

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. CV-20-485

TINA GEISINGER, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Samuel
Geisinger

Plaintiff
V. ORDER

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY J.
SINENI Ill, LLC, et al.

Defendants

Before the court are the following motions: (1) a motion to dismiss by defendants Law

Offices of Anthony J. Sineni III, LLC and Anthony Sineni Esq. (collectively, "Sineni"), (2) a

motion to amend the complaint by plaintiff Tina Geisinger, as Personal Representative of the

Estate of Samuel Geisinger, (3) a motion by Sineni to stay all proceedings until his motion to

dismiss is decided; and (4) a motion by Sineni for sanctions in the form of dismissal and attorney's

fees. ·

Although Sineni has not filed a pleading designated as an opposition to Geisinger' s motion

to amend, his opposition to that motion is set fo1ih in the motion for sanctions. In that motion he

contends that the proposed amendment constitutes an improper alteration of the pleadings because

the claims alleged in the proposed first amended complaint are now asserted by Tina Geisinger

individually as well as by Tina Geisinger as Personal Representative of the Estate.

The motion to amend seeks to add Geisinger in her individual capacity in response to

certain of the arguments made by Sineni in his motion to dismiss. The court sees no basis at this

stage of the case to deny the motion to amend because, in the court's view, rather than improperly
(

altering the pleadings, Geisinger is seeking leave of court to remedy any claim that there may have

been a misjoinder of parties. Under M.R.Civ.P. 21 misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal

of an action but may be remedied with leave of court. Accordingly, the motion to amend is granted,

Tina Geisinger is now a plaintiff in her individual capacity, the first amended complaint is now

the operative pleading in the case, and Sineni's motion for sanctions is denied.

There remains Sineni's motion to dismiss. As directed to the claims in the initial complaint,

brought only in the name of the Estate, Sineni' s argument appears to be that - at least as to alleged

malpractice that that occurred during the period between Samuel Geisinger' s death and the date

when Tina Geisinger was appointed as Personal Representative - the Estate does not have

standing. 1 If there is a question as to whether an Estate can pursue a claim of malpractice which

arose during the period when no personal representative had been appointed, the court concludes

that, for purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the complaint states a claim on which relief

may be granted. 2

Specifically, although Sineni vigorously disputes that he ever agreed to represent Tina

Geisinger or the Estate of Samuel Geisinger after Samuel's death, see Motion to Dismiss dated

December 18, 2020 at 2-3, the complaint alleges that he agreed to represent the interests of the

Estate pending appointment of a personal representative, which he agreed to facilitate. Complaint

1
Although Sineni has raised standing as ajurisdictional defense as well as a basis for dismissal under Rule
l 2(b )(6), standing and subject matter jurisdiction are separate issues. Norris Family Associates LLCv. Town
of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 102 ~ 13, 879 A.2d 1007. There is no viable argument that the cou11 does not have
subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

2 The corn1 is unwilling to conclude that the personal representative of an estate, when eventually
appointed, cannot pursue a claim of legal malpractice that allegedly occurred in the time period between
the decedent's death and the personal representative's appointment, potentially leaving the estate without
any remedy for wrongdoing that may have occurred during the interregnum.

2
(
'

~ 8; Proposed First Amended Complaint~ 8. On a motion to dismiss, the material allegations of a

complaint must be taken as admitted. Ramsey v. Baxter Title Co., 2012 ME 113 ~ 2, 54 A.3d 710.

Therefore, whether Sineni agreed to represent the interests of the Estate after Geisinger' s

death is a factual issue that cannot be decided on the face of the pleadings. Further development

of the facts may also resolve whether the Estate and/or Tina Geisinger individually are appropriate

parties to pursue claims of alleged malpractice with respect to claims that were pending at the time

of Samuel Geisinger' s death.

The entry shall be:

1. Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint and to add Tina Geisinger as a plaintiff in her
individual capacity is granted.

2. Defendants' motions to dismiss and for sanctions are denied.

3. Defendants' motion to stay this action is moot.

4. Defendants shall serve and file an answer to the first amended complaint on or before
April 15, 202 I.

5. The clerk shall incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: March 4, 2021
Thomas D. Warren
Justice, Superior Court

Plaintiff=Michael Welch, Esq.
and William Herbert, Esq.
Defendant-Anthony J Sineni Ill
Entered on tMe Docket: 0'3 bo / 2-/
11,t,-/

3