Free Newsletter
Civil practice – Equitable attachment
Where a plaintiff has filed a motion seeking prejudgment security in the form of a $60 million equitable attachment, that motion should be denied because the plaintiff has not shown that it is entitled to any equitable attachment to enforce reach-and-apply rights under G.L.c. 214, §3(6).
Civil practice – Impoundment
Where impoundment has been requested, that request should be denied because the parties have not identified any trade secrets or other highly sensitive information that may properly be withheld from the public file.
Contract – Marketing agreement
Where a plaintiff alleging breach of a marketing agreement has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, that motion should be denied because the plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that any harm caused by the defendants’ alleged misconduct could not adequately be compensated with money damages.
Employment – Lie detector – Online assessment
Where a plaintiff applied for a job with the defendant, which required the plaintiff to complete an online assessment called a “Virtual Job Tryout” (VJT), the plaintiff’s complaint under the Massachusetts lie detector statute must be dismissed because the facts alleged in his complaint do not plausibly suggest that the VJT was a lie detector test within the meaning of the statute.
Contract – Construction project – DCAMM
Where Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance has asserted counterclaims against a plaintiff that did not complete a construction project on time, DCAMM is entitled to recover at least $7,449,415.05 from the plaintiff, plus reasonable counsel fees and court costs.
Contract – Sale – Implied covenant of good faith
Where defendants that sold five Massachusetts skilled nursing facilities to the plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and violation of G.L.c. 93A, the motion should be denied because the factual allegations in the complaint plausibly suggest that the defendants violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and committed an unfair trade prac[...]
Corporate – Fiduciary duties – Freeze-out
Where defendants have moved in limine to bar any evidence regarding a failure to offer appraisal rights to the plaintiffs, the motion should be allowed to the extent that it seeks to exclude cumulative evidence about essentially undisputed facts.
Corporate – LLC
Where a plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction to bar the defendants from exercising control over a limited liability company, that motion should be allowed because the plaintiff has shown that it is extremely likely to succeed on the merits of its claims.
Contract – Construction project management services
Where a plaintiff has moved to dismiss a defendant’s counterclaims, that motion should be denied in part, as the facts alleged by the defendant plausibly suggest that it may be entitled to relief with respect to three counterclaims for breach of contract and one for unjust enrichment.
Consumer protection – Debt collection
Where (1) a plaintiff’s motion for class certification and for summary judgment were allowed and (2) the defendant has moved to decertify the class and to vacate the summary judgment award, the defendant’s motions should be denied because there was no abuse of discretion in the class certification, nor is there any merit to the defendant’s procedural due process arguments.
Contract – Operating agreements – LLCs
Where a plaintiff has filed a complaint concerning two limited liability companies that own rental properties, the complaint must be dismissed to the extent that it is brought against the plaintiff’s sister, as the facts alleged in the complaint do not state viable claims for breach of the LLCs’ operating agreements.
Consumer protection – Debt collection
Where a plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that two defendants have violated G.L.c. 93A and the Massachusetts Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by bringing small claims debt collection actions, the plaintiff’s motions for class certification and for summary judgment should be allowed because one of the defendants never obtained, and has no evidence that he had any ability to obtain, documenta[...]
