Real property – Utility pole – Relocation

Where a plaintiff has brought suit to prevent the relocation of a utility pole onto her property, a motion to dismiss filed by one of the defendants, a private real estate developer, should be allowed because the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint do not plausibly suggest any entitlement to relief against that defendant.

“… [The plaintiff]’s complaint alleges that defendants are proposing to relocate a utility pole onto her property and remove other structures and trees from her property located along Route 1A at 741 Newport Avenue, South Attleboro, Massachusetts. …

“On October 27 and 28, 2025, defendant Arista Development, LLC (‘Arista’) appeared through counsel and filed a Motion to Dismiss [the plaintiff]’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. …

“… Notably, [the plaintiff]’s Complaint does not mention Artista, except to name it in the caption. The Complaint contains no factual allegations about Arista, nor does it assert any claims for relief against Arista.

“In her Opposition, [the plaintiff] tries to link Arista, a private real estate developer, to the proposed relocation of the utility pole shown on MassDOT’s plan #607339 for Intersection Improvements at Route 1, Route 1A, and Route 123. …

“Here, the facts alleged in [the plaintiff]’s Complaint do not plausibly suggest any entitlement to relief against Arista. Even assuming that relocation of utility pole #1519 will ‘violate the personal property of plaintiff by encroachment,’ … there is nothing in [the plaintiff]’s Complaint to connect the pole’s relocation to defendant Arista. [The plaintiff]’s Complaint does not allege that Arista owns or controls the utility pole and nowhere explains how Arista could be held legally responsible for its relocation. At the hearing, the court asked [the plaintiff] to explain how Arista is connected to the relocation of the utility pole. Similar to the accusations raised in her Opposition, she believes it is ‘obvious’ that Arista is responsible because they are developing a restaurant next door. They will be benefitted by the pole’s relocation, she supposes, because their restaurant ‘will look good’ and her property will be stuck with the ‘crappy big transformer’ on the pole.

“Applying judicial experience and common sense to assess the plausibility of [the plaintiff]’s allegations, the court finds that her claims do not rise above the level of speculation. [The plaintiff]’s claims against Arista are dominated by unpleaded facts, subjective characterizations, and conclusory assertions. … Private property owners — even influential ones — do not own or exercise plenary authority or control over the placement or relocation of utility poles along public ways. Moreover, any incidental benefit Arista might gain from the relocation of a utility pole onto plaintiff’s land does not provide legal grounds for this court to award relief to [the plaintiff] against Arista. …

“Accordingly, the court finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Arista, and therefore must be dismissed.”

Carter v. MassDOT, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-041-26) (9 pages) (Reznick, J.) (Bristol Land Court) (Docket No. 25 MISC 000577) (July 17, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.