Free Newsletter
Commercial – Chapter 93A – Detrimental reliance
Where defendants have moved for summary judgment on a plaintiff’s claim under G.L.c. 93A, that claim is not barred by the economic loss doctrine, but the defendants are nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff has no evidence that it relied to its detriment on alleged efforts to string it along.
Contract – Dealer agreement
Where a plaintiff truck dealership brought a breach of contract action after the defendant manufacturer exercised its discretion to appoint a new dealer in the plaintiff’s designated “Area of Responsibility,” an award of summary judgment in favor of the defendant should be affirmed because the defendant made a “warranted” determination based on contractually proper criteria.
Patent and trademark – Trade dress infringement – Tortious interference
Where a jury found that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trade dress in its storage cabinets and drawers and tortiously interfered with the plaintiff’s business relationship with Walmart, the defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as a reasonable jury could find that its infringement more likely than not caused the plaintiff to lose wastebasket lid revenue fro[...]
Corporate – Fees – Chapter 156D
Where a plaintiff who sued to enforce her right to certain books and records has requested counsel fees and costs in the amount of $80,023.34 under G.L.c. 156D, §16.04(c), that request should be granted but only in the amount of $68,854.59.
Commercial – Fraudulent inducement – Tortious interference
Where (1) a plaintiff, having hired a defendant to develop a software platform to sell its mold remediation products to consumers, brought suit alleging its trade secrets were stolen and (2) the defendant and its founders have brought third-party claims against the plaintiff’s chief executive officer, a motion to dismiss filed by the CEO should be denied as to a Chapter 93A claim and a defamatio[...]
Corporate – LLC – Shares
Where (1) plaintiff urologist was a member of a defendant limited liability company, (2) when he left, he signed a separation agreement referencing his Class B shares and (3) after the defendant entered into a transaction with U.S. Urology Partners, LLC, the plaintiff filed an action asserting that the separation agreement entitled him to money based on his Class B shares, the plaintiff is unable [...]
Are AI prompts privileged? Time will tell
New York Supreme Court Justice Rhonda E. Fischer ruled that AI prompts used by a pro se defendant may be protected as privileged work product.
Contract – Noncompete and nondisclosure provisions
Where a plaintiff alleging breach of contractual non-competition and non-disclosure provisions has brought an action for injunctive relief and damages, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied because the plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to nudge its claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.
Contract – Release – Settlement
Where a subcontractor has moved for summary judgment on all claims brought by a general contractor, that motion must be allowed based on a release in an agreement to settle a 2018 lawsuit.
Jurisdiction – Transfer
Where a plaintiff has asserted claims on his alleged contributions to the defendant’s digital marketing company, the defendant’s motion to transfer the action under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) should be denied because the parties’ dispute has sufficient factual connections with Massachusetts and because the convenience of witnesses — the most important factor — weighs against transfer.
Arbitration – Prompt Pay Act
Where an arbitrator awarded recoupment of payments to a general contractor that (1) did not timely certify its rejection of invoices submitted by a subcontractor and (2) asserted defenses to payment before paying the invoices, the arbitrator's award was within his authority, so a Superior Court judgment vacating the arbitration award must be reversed.
Contract – Asset purchase agreement – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Where a plaintiff that entered into an asset purchase agreement has brought three claims for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, those three claims must be dismissed because they lack the essential element of unauthorized access, but the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied with respect to the plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract (Count IV), breach of the implied cov[...]
