BANGOR — In a reply to support a motion to dismiss multiple counts and some of the defendants in the federal lawsuit filed by the owners of Cap’n Nemo’s restaurant, the attorneys for Tremont firefighters reiterate their contention that the amended complaint filed by Robert and Judy Cousins goes beyond the scope of an appeals court decision.
Attorneys Devin Deane and Robert Bower argue that the only remaining federal claims are a 1983 class-of-one equal protection claim, a substantive due process claim, state law negligence claim and a state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the firefighters filed by the couple following the December 2013 fire that destroyed their restaurant.
The Cousinses, who represent themselves, claim that the additional counts and defendants added to their amended complaint should be included because “they are not separate issues but demonstrate the ongoing retaliation and slander and violence against [the couple] in the same case and controversy.”
The firefighters’ attorneys stated that the Cousinses “continued attempts within their opposition to ‘move the target’ of the firefighter defendants with fluid and ever-changing claims” should not be tolerated.
“The firefighter defendants’ right to due process – to defend themselves from the baseless allegations being levied against them – must also be respected in this case,” they wrote.
The Cousinses filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in December 2014. In June 2015, a judge dismissed the suit. The couple subsequently filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.
In September, the appeals court affirmed some of the lower court decisions but found that the couple’s claims that their rights to due process and equal protection had been violated were improperly dismissed. These claims were remanded to the lower court for reconsideration.
In October, the Cousinses, as allowed under the appeals court decision, filed an amended complaint. Deane and Bowers subsequently moved to have the court dismiss all but five of the 16 claims in the complaint.
A judge is to rule on the firefighter’s motion to dismiss. No deadline has been set for that decision to be made.