Posts tagged "1205917"

WHDT Congress Holdings LP v. Farnsworth Congress LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-059-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1784CV00295-BLS2 ____________________ WHDT CONGRESS HOLDINGS LP v. FARNSWORTH CONGRESS LLC ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND SCHEDULING A RULE 16 CONFERENCE TO PICK A TRIAL DATE WHDT Congress Holdings LP has contracted to buy a ground-floor commercial condominium unit in a building that Farnsworth Congress LLC is having constructed at 338 Congress Street in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood of Boston. The parties’ purchase and sale agreement gives Farnsworth a “limited right of approval” of any proposed tenant to ensure that it “is of similar quality and class” as the “first class appearance and nature” of the building as a whole. Although WHDT is not required to lease the unit to a restaurant, if its wishes to do so Farnsworth has the contractual right to withhold approval if the proposed tenant is not “of similar or greater quality and appearance” to Row34, Bastille Kitchen, Sportello, and Blue Dragon, which are all located within a few blocks of the new building. WHDT filed a complaint in January 2017 claiming that Farnsworth has unreasonably withheld approval of a franchise of the “&pizza” chain as a tenant, allegedly in violation of the parties’ P&S. Almost three months later WHDH served, and has now filed, a motion for a preliminary injunction that would enjoin Farnsworth from withholding its approval of &pizza’s tenancy and also order Farnsworth to provide plans and other documentation regarding the disputed condominium. WHDT proposes that resolution of its preliminary injunction motion be consolidated with a bench trial on the merits to be held no later than forty-five days of the date it served its motion, i.e. by June 5, 2017.1 The Court declines to consolidate the motion hearing with the trial and hold both in early June, because new issues raised by WHDT for the first time in its motion 1 Neither party has requested a jury trial. WHDT represents that is because the parties waived any right to a jury trial in their P&S. – 2 – papers will require a reasonable time for discovery plus expert testimony. The Court will deny the preliminary injunction motion because WHDT has not shown that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its claims or that it will suffer any irreparable harm in the meantime. If WHDT had sought a prompt trial when it filed its complaint, it may have made sense to schedule the trial for early June. It is now too late for that. But the Court believes that the parties should be able to get this case ready for trial within the next two or three months. It will hold a scheduling conference next […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 1, 2017 at 6:35 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,