Maine Court Dismisses Golden Anchor Suit Against Bar Harbor

Maine Business and Consumer Court Judge Michael Duddy dismissed Golden Anchor’s declaratory judgment action against Bar Harbor on Sept. 2, finding that it duplicated the company’s pending appeal over cruise passenger disembarkation rules. The ruling leaves Golden Anchor’s Rule 80B appeal active.

The dispute concerns Golden Anchor’s ability to receive tendered cruise passengers at its privately owned Harborside Pier at 55 West Street. Bar Harbor issued the company a notice of violation after Chapter 52 replaced its previous license arrangement with a permit requirement.

“While we intend to appeal this decision, we are also focused on Judge Walker’s ruling in our favor,” said Eben Salvatore, director of operations for Bar Harbor Resorts.

Court directs claims into Rule 80B appeal

Bar Harbor’s code enforcement officer issued the notice of violation on Aug. 5, 2024, alleging that Golden Anchor had disembarked passengers without the permit required by Chapter 52. Golden Anchor, which had historically received cruise passengers at the pier, appealed the notice to the Bar Harbor Board of Appeals and separately sought a declaratory judgment in Superior Court. The latter action was transferred to the Business and Consumer Court.

The appeals board denied Golden Anchor’s challenge in December 2024. The company then pursued review under Maine Rule 80B, which allows Superior Court scrutiny of municipal actions, while continuing its separate declaratory judgment case contesting the ordinance’s validity.

Bar Harbor argued that the two proceedings relied on substantially the same facts, claims and requested relief. In April 2025, the court dismissed most of the relevant counts in the Rule 80B case but allowed Golden Anchor to amend its complaint. The amended filing again included challenges to Chapter 52 within the Rule 80B proceeding.

The town moved to dismiss the separate declaratory judgment action on May 29, 2026. Golden Anchor opposed the request on July 2, the town replied on July 23, and Duddy heard arguments by videoconference on Aug. 20.

“The pending Rule 80B Appeal is Golden Anchor’s exclusive avenue for judicial relief,” Duddy wrote, concluding that the remaining case provides an adequate remedy for the company’s claims.

Chapter 52 remains part of broader cruise litigation

Bar Harbor’s Town Council adopted Chapter 52 on June 18, 2024, and the ordinance took effect July 18. A November 2024 ballot proposal that would have repealed it and introduced different cruise limits failed by 1,776 votes to 1,713.

The town received 176 ship calls and 254,546 cruise passengers in 2019, while fewer than 50,000 cruise visitors were projected for 2026 under the newer limits.

Golden Anchor’s litigation is separate from the federal case brought by the Association to Preserve and Protect Local Livelihoods and other plaintiffs over Bar Harbor’s daily passenger limits. In May 2026, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker found portions of the ordinance unconstitutional after the case returned to his court on remand.

Salvatore said Walker’s ruling opened 10 months of the year for cruise reservations to resume. He added that the company wants to work with the town and residents on passenger visitation rules for May, June, September and October.

Intervention dispute delays remaining case

The Rule 80B proceeding also depends on a separate appeal by Charles Sidman, a lead petitioner behind Bar Harbor’s cruise passenger ordinance. The Business Court denied his motion to intervene in March 2026, finding that his participation would unduly delay or prejudice the existing parties.

Sidman challenged that decision in a 49-page brief filed Aug. 20. His attorney, Robert Papazian, argued that Sidman has a direct interest because he owns commercial property about a quarter-mile from the West Street disembarkation site. Papazian also contended that the town cannot adequately represent Sidman while receiving cruise passengers at the Town Pier.