Court granted Defendant The Lazy Frog’s partial summary judgment. There is no evidence Defendant The Lazy Frog exhibited the type of conduct necessary to survive summary judgment on a claim for gross negligence. There is also no evidence that The Lazy Frog had any role in the design, construction or maintenance of the course. Domingo […]
Parsons, et al v. Town of Tewksbury, et al.
April 4, 2014 by ·
Parsons, et al v. Town of Tewksbury, et al., Civil Action No. 2009-1595 (Middlesex Superior Court) (Ullman, J)
Diaz v. Jepson, et al
November 21, 2013 by ·
Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Mere fact of vehicle’s collision with a deer is not evidence of negligence. In the absence of any evidence of negligent operation by the drivers, Summary Judgment must enter. Diaz v. Jepson, et. al., C.A. No. 2011-1248 (Plymouth Superior Court) (Moriarty, J.)
Sheehan v. Balanced Health & Fitness, Inc. et al
April 10, 2013 by ·
Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants’ tax returns based on a qualified privilege against compelled production of federal tax returns because Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a substantial need for those documents which is necessary to overcome the qualified privilege.
David Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, Board of Fire Commissioners of the Cotuit Fire District, et al
March 20, 2013 by ·
Plaintiff firefighter’s complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for political discrimination and unlawful retaliation under the First Amendment, as well as claims for tortious interference with contractual relations and alleged violations of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, M.G.L.c. 149 §185 were all disposed of by the court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. […]
Arbella Mutual Insurance Company as Subrogee of Dwight and Lisa DeGeorge v. Holden Oil Company and Bob McGee Plumbing and Heating Company
January 29, 2013 by ·
Insurer’s motion for summary judgment allowed on claims against the insurer under M.G.L.c. 93A §11, alleging unfair and deceptive business practices, where there was no business relationship, trade or commerce between the insurer and the claimant which could give rise to a viable claim under M.G.L.c. 93A §11. Arbella Mutual Insurance Company as Subrogee of […]
David Pierce et al. v. Cotuit Fire District et al., Barnstable Superior Court, C.A. No.: 2011-00178
October 22, 2012 by ·
Summary judgment entered on all of the Plaintiffs’ claims under the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, M.G.L.c. 39 §18-25 due to Plaintiffs’ failure to file their complaint within the timeframe mandated by law. Additionally, to the extent there was a violation of the Open Meeting Law, the Board cured that violation through subsequent meetings conducted in […]
Welsh v. Arbella Mutual Insurance Company, Barnstable Superior Court, C.A.No: 2010-00623 (Decision March 14, 2012) (Welch, J. (Ret.))
March 14, 2012 by ·
Defendant-insurer was not collaterally estopped from defending against an under-insured motorist arbitration based on prior PIP litigation under M.G.L.c. 90 §34M between that insurer and a chiropractor who treated the claimant who was seeking underinsured motorist benefits. The arbitrator ruled that the cases were different and the parties were not the same. Welsh v. Arbella […]
Boyd v. Cooperative Reserve Supply, Inc. v. FL Larson Trucking, Inc., Middlesex Superior Court, C.A. No.: 2011-0313 (Decision November 9, 2011) (Budd, J.)
November 9, 2011 by ·
Defendant / Third-Party Plaintiff defeated motion for summary judgment brought by third party Defendant who owned a flat bed trailer involved in an incident that occurred during the unloading of a shipment of commercial goods from that flat bed trailer. Moving party alleged that the load was under the control of an independent contractor over […]
Sackett v. One Beacon Insurance et al, Nantucket Superior Court, 2004-00058 (Decision 9/15/2011) (Chin, J.)
September 15, 2011 by ·
Judgment obtained for Defendant mold remediation contractor after flooding incidents occurred inside a luxury vacation home on NantucketIsland. The Defendant mold remediation contractor was retained by the homeowner and / or their insurer to perform specified cleaning services. The contractor was not retained to evaluate the extent of the mold problem or to prepare a […]