Sebago, et al. v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., et al. (and a consolidated case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-068-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11757 BERNARD SEBAGO & others[1] vs. BOSTON CAB DISPATCH, INC., & others[2] (and a consolidated case[3]). Suffolk. January 8, 2015. – April 21, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Hines, JJ. Taxicab. Independent Contractor Act. Massachusetts Wage Act. Minimum Wage. Tips. Labor, Wages, Minimum wage, Overtime compensation. Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 6 and September 14, 2012. After consolidation, the case was heard by Linda E. Giles, J., on motions for summary judgment, and the case was reported by her to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Shannon Liss-Riordan (Adelaide Pagano with her) for Bernard Sebago. Andrew Good (Philip G. Cormier with him) for Edward J. Tutunjian. Albert A. DeNapoli (Emily C. Shanahan with him) for USA Taxi Association, Inc. Nathan L. Kaitz, for John Byda, was present but did not argue. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Norman M. Leon, of Illinois, & Matthew Iverson for International Franchise Association. Nicole Horberg Decter & Don Siegel for Massachusetts AFL-CIO. Stevan Johnson, pro se. Helen G. Litsas, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, for city of Boston. CORDY, J. In this case, we must determine whether licensed taxicab drivers in the city of Boston (city) may be classified properly as independent contractors, see G. L. c. 149, § 148B (independent contractor statute), in accordance with Boston Police Department Rule 403, Hackney Carriage Rules and Flat Rate Handbook (2008) (Rule 403). Rule 403 is a comprehensive set of regulations for the Boston taxicab industry, promulgated by the city’s police commissioner (commissioner) pursuant to an express delegation of authority by the Legislature. St. 1930, c. 392, as amended by St. 1931, c. 408, § 7, and St. 1934, c. 280. The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases, Bernard Sebago, Pierre Duchemin, Ahmed Farah, and Yves Bien-Aime, are licensed taxicab drivers in the city. They contend that they were employees of the defendants but were misclassified as independent contractors, thereby depriving them of minimum wages, overtime pay, tips, and the protections afforded by the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, § 148. The defendants include taxicab owners, radio associations, and a taxicab garage. They argue that their relationships with the plaintiffs must be considered in the context of Rule 403, which explicitly permits drivers to […]
City of Brockton v. Energy Facilities Siting Board (No. 1) (and two consolidated cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-131-14)
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-11406 CITY OF BROCKTON vs. ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD (No. 1) (and two consolidated cases[1]). Suffolk. March 4, 2014. – July 31, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.[2] Energy Facilities Siting Board. Public Utilities, Energy company, Electric company. Electric Company. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. Administrative Law, Decision, Judicial review, Substantial evidence. Environment, Air pollution, Environmental impact report. Municipal Corporations, Electric plant, Water supply. Civil actions commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on August 24, August 28, and September 2, 2009. After consolidation, the case was reported by Spina, J. Lisa C. Goodheart (Phelps T. Turner, Joshua D. Nadreau, & Staci Rubin with her) for Frank J. Babbin & others. John L. Holgerson for town of West Bridgwater. Gregor I. McGregor (Nathaniel Stevens with him) for city of Brockton. Sookyoung Shin, Assistant Attorney General, for Energy Facilities Siting Board. David S. Rosenzweig (Erika J. Hafner & Michael J. Koehler with him) for Brockton Power Company LLC. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Veronica Eady for Conservation Law Foundation. Rahsaan D. Hall, Matthew Cregor, Sasha N. Kopf, Tyler D. Crosby, & Priya A. Lane for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice. Wendy B. Jacobs & Aladdine D. Joroff for Hands Across the River Coalition. BOTSFORD, J. Brockton Power Company LLC (Brockton Power, or company) filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼ (§ 69J¼), with the Energy Facilities Siting Board (board) to construct and operate a 350-megawatt combined-cycle energy generating facility (facility) powered by natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate (ULSD) on a 13.2-acre lot in the city of Brockton (city). After extensive hearings, the board approved Brockton Power’s petition, with conditions. The city, the town of West Bridgewater (town), and a group of residents of the city and the town (residents), all interveners in the proceedings before the board (collectively, interveners), filed appeals in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 164, § 69P, and G. L. c. 25, § 5.[3] A single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court.[4] On appeal the interveners argue[5] that the board (1) failed to adopt and apply the 2002 environmental justice policy that is a binding environmental protection policy of the Commonwealth; (2) improperly relied on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for […]
Singh v. Capuano (and a consolidated case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-099-14)
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‑11491 SJC‑11565 ANEETA SINGH vs. SCOTT CAPUANO (and a consolidated case[1]). Middlesex. February 3, 2014. ‑ June 11, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Abuse Prevention. Witness, Self‑incrimination. Practice, Civil, Moot case. Complaint for protection from abuse filed in the Somerville Division of the District Court Department on February 14, 2013. Hearings to extend the abuse prevention order were had before Neil J. Walker, J., and Joseph W. Jennings, III, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted applications for direct appellate review. Michael J. Licker (Kevin J. Conroy with him) for the plaintiffs. Cindy T.K. Palmquist for Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts, Inc., & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. IRELAND, C.J. The plaintiff, Aneeta Singh, appeals from two District Court orders extending for three months certain portions of an abuse prevention order that had issued against the defendant, Scott Capuano. Singh had sought to have the original order extended in its entirety for a full year. We granted Singh’s applications for direct appellate review and consolidated the appeals. While the appeals have been pending, the underlying orders were succeeded by other orders, to which Singh does not object. We therefore dismiss these appeals as moot. Considering the importance of “proper judicial administration of . . . restraining orders,” Uttaro v. Uttarro, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 871, 873 n.2 (2002), however, we exercise our discretion to comment on some of the issues presented. Facts. On February 14, 2013, Singh filed a complaint in the District Court seeking an abuse prevention order against Capuano pursuant to G. L. c. 209A. After an ex parte hearing, a temporary order issued granting custody of the parties’ minor child to Singh and directing Capuano to have no contact with, to stay at least fifty yards away from, and not to abuse Singh or the child. The matter was scheduled to be heard next on February 22, 2013. Shortly after the ex parte hearing, Singh filed a report with the police concerning the events underlying the c. 209A complaint and also applied for criminal complaints against Capuano that eventually issued. Both parties appeared with counsel before a second District Court judge on February 22, 2013. Despite Singh’s request for an evidentiary hearing and to have the abuse prevention […]
Bank of America, N.A. v. Rosa (and three consolidated cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-198-13)
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 SJC‑11330 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs. CEFERINO S. ROSA (and three consolidated cases[1]). Essex. September 9, 2013. ‑ December 18, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Mortgage, Foreclosure. Summary Process. Housing Court, Jurisdiction. Practice, Civil, Summary process, Affirmative defense, Counterclaim and cross‑claim. Jurisdiction, Summary process, Housing Court, Equitable. Uniform Summary Process Rules. Rules of Civil Procedure. Statute, Construction. Summary process. Complaints filed in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department, two on February 6, 2012, and one each on January 20, 2012, and April 2, 2012, respectively. Motions to strike and to dismiss affirmative defenses and counterclaims were heard by David D. Kerman, J. Proceedings for interlocutory review were heard in the Appeals Court by Mary T. Sullivan, J., and the cases were consolidated and reported by her to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Phoebe N. Coddington, of North Carolina (Jennifer E. Greaney & Stephen C. Reilly with her) for Bank of America, N.A., & another. Thomas J. Santolucito (Rachel B. Meisterman with him) for Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Richard M.W. Bauer (Eloise P. Lawrence with him) for Ceferino S. Rosa & others. Marylyn E. Flores (David S. Flores with her) for Gerard J. Cioffi. Benjamin O. Adeyinka, for The Real Estate Bar Association of Massachusetts, Inc., & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Arielle Cohen & Charles Delbaum, for National Consumer Law Center, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. SPINA, J. In each of these consolidated appeals the plaintiff bank brought a summary process action against the former homeowner-mortgagor in the Housing Court after foreclosure. Each former homeowner raised various defenses and counterclaims in his or her answer to the complaint that challenged the bank’s right to both possession and title as derived through foreclosure sale, as well as other defenses and counterclaims. In each case the bank filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses and to dismiss the counterclaims on grounds that the only defenses and counterclaims available in summary process are (1) those allowed by G. L. c. 239, § 8A, which does not apply here because there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, and (2) a challenge to title (and thereby possession) based only on a failure to comply […]