DOUGLAS et al v. LALUMIERE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOEL DOUGLAS, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	2:20-cv-00227-JDL
)
SCOTT LALUMIERE, et al., 	)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs Joel Douglas, Steven Fowler, and James Lewis brought this action
against twenty-three named Defendants and three John Doe Defendants, alleging
seventeen claims involving fraudulent schemes connected to real estate, some arising
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1961-1968 (West 2022), and others arising under Maine law (ECF No. 11).1
The claims made against fourteen of the Defendants named in the Amended
Complaint have been dismissed.2 	Federal law claims remain pending against
Defendants Scott Lalumiere, Russell Oakes, Eric Holsapple, Wayne Lewis, and
1 The Plaintiffs’ original Complaint was filed on June 24, 2020, with thirteen claims against twenty-
one named Defendants and three John Doe Defendants (ECF No. 1). An Amended Complaint was
filed on September 15, 2020 (ECF No. 11). John Doe Number I was terminated, and John Doe Number
IV was added to the Amended Complaint.
2 A Motion for Entry of Default against Birch Point Storage, LLC was granted on February 10, 2021
(ECF No. 175). 	On September 29, 2021, claims against the following Defendants were dismissed:
Androscoggin Saving Bank (ECF No. 238); Andre Bellucci (ECF No. 240); Camden National Bank
(ECF No. 241); Shawn Lynden, Coastal Realty Capital, LLC, and Michael Lynden (ECF No. 242);
David Hirshon and LOSU, LLC (ECF No. 243); TTJR, LLC, BLR Capital, LLC, and LH Housing, LLC
(ECF No. 244); and Machias Savings Bank (ECF No. 245). On March 23, 2022, claims against FO
Bailey Real Estate, LLC (ECF No. 253) and David Clarke (ECF No. 254) were dismissed.
Case 2:20-cv-00227-LEW Document 294 Filed 02/24/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
MECAP, LLC. 	The federal claims that were brought against Defendants Bangor
Savings Bank (“BSB”) and Robert Burgess were dismissed on September 29, 2021
(ECF No. 239), and the federal claim against David Jones was dismissed on March
23, 2022 (ECF No. 253).
On March 7, 2022, Defendants BSB and Robert Burgess moved pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)3 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367 (West 2022) to dismiss Counts XII
(illegal eviction) and XIV (conversion of personal property) of the Amended Complaint
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 252). 	On May 23, 2022, Defendant
David Jones moved separately to dismiss Counts XI (trespass), XIV (conversion of
personal property), and XV (negligent destruction of personal property) of the
Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 263). 	The
Defendants argue that the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over these state
claims because they are not factually connected to the remaining federal claims and
alternatively, that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state claims under section 1367(c).
United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended
Decision with the Court on December 21, 2022 (ECF No. 292), pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2022) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 	Judge Nivison
recommends that the Court deny the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss because the
state claims are sufficiently connected to the federal claims that remain pending
against other Defendants. 	Judge Nivison also concludes that the Court is not
3 Although the Defendants state that they move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), I construe their
motions as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Case 2:20-cv-00227-LEW Document 294 Filed 02/24/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
required to refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c)
because federal claims remain pending against other parties.
The Magistrate Judge provided notice that a party’s failure to object would
waive the right to de novo review and appeal. The time within which to file objections
has expired, and no objections have been filed. Notwithstanding this waiver, I have
reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record,
and I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate
Judge. 	I concur with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons
set forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is
necessary.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 292) of
the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED, and the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF Nos. 252, 263) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of February, 2023.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:20-cv-00227-LEW Document 294 Filed 02/24/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>