independent claims, which were the only matters that remained pending before the court. The order set out a schedule and procedure for discovery, required a conference of counsel, and addressed other administrative matters. On March 18, the City filed a third motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds. [¶ 7] Following a hearing held on April 27, the court granted the City’s second motion to dismiss, sanctioning Baker’s Table for failure to file a motion to specify the future course of proceedings. Over Baker’s Table’s objection, the court on May 3 also granted the City’s first motion to dismiss, based on Baker’s Table’s failure to file a request for trial of the facts. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION A. . Rule 80B(d) [¶ 8] The court entered its first orde 72 A.2d 913, 918 (Me.1984) (<HOLDING>). The record may also be supplemented with
holding bare allegation of social friendship insufficient holding that a complaints bare assertions alone were insufficient for certification holding that a bare allegation of bad faith is insufficient to require an inquiry into the governments decision not to file  5k11 motion holding that a bare conclusory allegation of an intent to discriminate is insufficient specific nonconclusory facts from which such an intent may reasonably be inferred is required holding that mere recitation of bare elements of a cause of action is insufficient to survive dismissal