Genis v. Campbell, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-009-18)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss.SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-01798-BLS2 ALFRED R. GENIS vs. MARTIN CAMPBELL, DAVID CAMPBELL, PURE CRYSTAL, LLC, & JOHN DOE’s 1-10 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONTO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Alfred R.Geniscommenced this action against Martin Campbell (Martin), David Campbell (David),andPure Crystal, LLC (Pure Crystal),asserting that they, together with other unknown individuals, improperly disclosedhis confidentialinformationand trade secrets and failed to provide him equity in Pure Crystal as required by a 2013 agreement. 1 The matter is now before the Court on the named defendants’ motionto dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (2). For the reasons that follow, the motion isDENIED. 1 The Complaint is also brought against “John Doe 1-10,” which the Complaint alleges are persons whose true names are unknown but who are “responsible agents, principals, alter egos, [or] co-conspirators”of the named defendants. BACKGROUND The following is taken from theaffidavitthatGenisfiled in opposition to defendants’ motion, and the affidavits submitted by defendantsto the extent they are not disputed by Genisor contradict his affidavit. Genis, a resident of Massachusetts,is one of world’s leading diamond laboratory scientists. In May 2013, Genis delivered a professional paper at the International Technical 2 Diamond Conference concerning the mass production of diamonds using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) technology for industrial applications.Martin, who owned Pure Crystal with his brotherDavid,learned of this presentation and inearlySeptember 2013, reached out to Genis seeking assistance with Pure Crystal’s efforts to grow laboratory diamonds.The two agreed to meet to discuss a possible business relationship. On September 11, 2013, Martin flewfrom Ohio, where he and his brother reside,to Bostonand met with Genis. At their meeting, Martin explained that Pure Crystalhad purchased two microwave-poweredplasmareactors capable of producing diamonds but lacked the software necessary to growdiamonds suitable for commercialization. He hoped Geniscould help Pure Crystalcreate that software.Genis expressed interest in working with Martin but notedthat he was more interested indeveloping diamonds utilizing direct-current (DC) reactor technology, which he believed to be superior. Genis also expressed that he wanted to keep Boston as his primary workplace because he had recently been diagnosed with throat cancer and needed to remain in the city for treatment. Martin indicated that Geniscould remain in Boston and that in exchange for Genis’assistance and technology, he would help Genis buildaDC reactor. Following the meeting, they spoke by telephone on one or two moreoccasionsin Septembertosort outthe details of their business relationship,and Genis beganprovidingtheinformation Pure Crystal needed to grow diamonds in its reactors. That month, Genis received a paycheck from Pure Crystal. On October4,2013, Genis met with Martin and David at Pure Crystal’s office in Ohioandthe threeexecuted an agreement (October 2013 Agreement)thatmemorializedthediscussionsbetween Martin and Genis. TheOctober […]
Commonwealth v. Campbell (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-156-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11980 COMMONWEALTH vs. JAMIL J. CAMPBELL. Suffolk. February 10, 2016. – September 30, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.[1] Motor Vehicle, Operation, Permission to operate, Unauthorized use. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Probable cause. Search and Seizure, Probable cause, Inevitable discovery, Motor vehicle. Probable Cause. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Complaint received and sworn to in the Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on August 19, 2013. After transfer to the Central Division, a pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Charles R. Johnson, J. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Lenk, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the case was reported by her to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Helle Sachse, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Rebecca A. Jacobstein, Committee for Public Counsel Services (Aditi Goel, Committee for Public Counsel Services, with her) for the defendant. LENK, J. On August 17, 2013, at approximately 4:30 P.M., Trooper Thomas Hannon of the State police stopped a vehicle driven by the defendant for failing to stop at a stop sign. The vehicle had been rented by the defendant’s mother, who has a last name that is different from the defendant’s. Upon request, the defendant provided Hannon with a valid driver’s license and the rental agreement. The agreement listed only the mother as the renter and stated, “[N]o other drivers permitted.” Hannon concluded that the defendant was using the vehicle without authority, in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (2) (a), which makes it illegal to “use[] a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized.” Accordingly, he decided to impound the vehicle. During an inventory search in preparation for impoundment, a loaded handgun and a box of ammunition were seized from the vehicle. The Commonwealth maintains that, upon learning of the seizures, the defendant made incriminating statements to police. This case is before us on the Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal from a Boston Municipal Court judge’s order allowing the defendant’s motion to suppress the handgun, the ammunition, and statements he made to police. We conclude that the inventory search was unlawful under the circumstances, and therefore affirm the allowance […]
Krystle Campbell Mourned at Medford Funeral
A deep sadness permeated downtown Medford Monday for the funeral of Krystle Campbell, a native daughter killed one week ago in the bombings attacks at the Boston Marathon. The funeral brought out hundreds, lining both sides of High Street as traffic was shut down near St. Joseph’s Church. So many came out that the church got to capacity with many still lined up past the St. Joseph’s Social Center. While they came to pay their respects to Campbell, 29, who most recently lived in Arlington and worked as a restaurant manager, many also came to shield the family from a potential protest. The Westboro Baptist Church had threatened to picket the funeral, as they do at many high-profile events, to espouse their anti-gay views. Teamster Local 25 members came out in full force to block a potential protest, forming a human shield along the side of High Street near Boynton Road. No church protesters appeared at the funeral location Monday. Gregg Danichuk, a Webster Street resident in Medford whose family owns Danichuk Auto Body in East Boston, said he read about the WBC’s efforts Sunday and knew he needed to come out to support the Campbell family. “I felt like I had to come out and be a part of this,” Danichuk said. He added he has many friends in law enforcement and felt like much of the last week’s events hit close to home. Although he didn’t know the Campbells, Danichuk felt a connection as his two boys graduated from Medford High School, like Campbell. “That made it even a little closer to the heart,” said Danichuk. Patty Saunders lives on Greenwood Terrace in Medford, not far from where the Campbell family presently resides on Park Street. “My heart has been broken all week,” Saunders said. “I was still getting over Sandy Hook.” Saunders’ son, Jeff, is a Massachusetts State Police trooper in the Homicide Division, and his mom said he took part in the Watertown operations that eventually led to the arrest of 19-year-old bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday. “I’m so proud of all of our law enforcement,” Saunders said. “The police, the first responders. They all did such a great job.” Saunders said the community’s outpouring of support for the Campbell family has been incredible. “It’s not just Medford,” she said. “This was an attack on us. It affects everybody.” Leigh Ghiradelli of Medford said she met Krystle Campbell on one occasion several years ago, saying her nephew went to high school with her. Though their interaction with brief, Ghiradelli recalled Campbell as a nice person. “It’s great to see […]
Hundreds Attend Wake for Krystle Campbell
Friends and family began the process of saying goodbye to Krystle Campbell Sunday, showing strength in their numbers. Campbell, 29, was a Medford native and Arlington resident killed in Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings. The line that formed at Dello Russo Funeral Home on Main Street was lengthy even before the doors opened at 3 p.m., eventually wrapping around the corner of Billings Avenue. The program Sunday’s wake, provided to Patch by funeral director Fred Dello Russo, Jr., was adorned with pictures of Campbell, a 2001 Medford High School graduate, throughout her life. Inscribed in the middle of the program was the following message: “Always remember we love you. Although you could not stay, you’ll always remain in our hearts, until we meet again, our beautiful Krystle.” The wake brought out some who had no previous connection to Campbell. Roberto Garutti, a Medford resident who lives on nearby George Street, said he didn’t know Campbell or her family. But he felt compelled Sunday to come and pay his respects. “It effects everybody,” Garutti said. “It effects Medford, too. She was part of the city here.” Garutti said he was impressed by the show of support from the community. He was impressed with all the stories about Campbell, saying she seemed like a “wonderful girl.” “She deserves all of this,” he said of the turnout. “One-hundred percent.” Campbell will be laid to rest Monday. A Mass of Christian Burial will be held at 11 a.m. at St. Joseph’s Parish, 118 High St. in Medford. Burial will then take place at Oak Grove Cemetery. South End Patch
Commonwealth v. Campbell (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-037-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 10‑P‑1087 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. ALVIN CAMPBELL. No. 10‑P‑1087. Middlesex. December 5, 2012. ‑ February 28, 2013. Present: Cypher, Brown, & Cohen, JJ. Due Process of Law, Presence of defendant in courtroom. Constitutional Law, Waiver of constitutional rights. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Presence of defendant, Waiver. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 26 and September 29, 2005. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Ralph D. Gants, J., and a motion for reconsideration was also heard by him; the cases were tried before Diane M. Kottmyer, J., and a motion for a new trial was considered by her. Derege B. Demissie for the defendant. Anne Pogue Donohue, Assistant District Attorney (Marian T. Ryan, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. CYPHER, J. The defendant, Alvin Campbell, appeals from his convictions by a jury on indictments charging accessory after the fact (armed robbery), accessory after the fact (larceny over $ 250), and carrying a firearm without a license. In a separate proceeding on the next day, the jury also convicted the defendant of being an armed career criminal. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and deprivation of his right to be present at a critical stage of the proceedings, specifically at a hearing on the motion to suppress. The new trial motion was denied without a hearing. The defendant brings this consolidated appeal from his convictions and the denial of his new trial motion. Although the defendant raises several issues on appeal, we need only address his claim that he was deprived of his right to be present at the hearing on the motion to suppress, which is a critical stage of the proceedings. Procedural background. A codefendant’s counsel in this case had filed a timely motion to suppress and, at the time set for the hearing, his client was transported from the jail for the hearing. The defendant, however, had not been transported from the jail because his counsel had neglected to file a motion to suppress. The motion judge instructed the clerk to telephone defense counsel for the defendant, and defense counsel appeared in court before the judge began the hearing on the motion to suppress. The judge asked […]