Posts tagged "Donovan"

Brining v. Donovan, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-020-18)

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 1684CV03422-BLS1 JENNIFER BRINING, individually and as Trustee of the Jennifer Brining Living Trust and for the Benefit of SENDLATER, INC., in a Derivative Capacity. vs. JOHN J. DONOVAN, SENDLATER, INC., SENDLATER II HOLDINGS, LLC AND SIL ENTERPRISES, LLC and WILLIAM T. HURLEY. JR. AND MIRANDA P. GOODING ESQ., trustee defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISSOLVE PLAINTFF’S TRUSTEE PROCESS ATTACHMENT INTRODUCTION This case is before the Court on the trustee process defendants’, William T. Hurley Jr. (“Hurley”) and Miranda P. Gooding, Esq (“Gooding”), motion to dissolve plaintiff’s attachments on trustee process. On December 13, 2016, this court entered orders authorizing $ 1 million attachments on trustee process against both William T. Hurley, as Trustee of the Trust One JJD, and Miranda Gooding, as Trustee with respect to an escrow account held by her law firm, Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC (the Escrow and, collectively the Attachments and the Trustees). The Attachments attached any goods, effects or credits of the defendant John J. Donovan, Sr. (Donovan, Sr.) held by each Trustee to secure a judgment that the plaintiff Jennifer Brining 2 sought to recover against John J. Donovan, Sr. in this litigation.1 In the principal action, Brining now asserts claims derivatively on behalf of Sendlater, Inc. for approximately $ 2.5 million which she maintains Donovan, Sr. misappropriated from Sendlater during the period that he controlled its accounts and operations. See Motion to Dismiss Decision. After Donovan, Sr.’s motion to dismiss was denied, the Trustees filed this motion to vacate the Attachments (Motion to Vacate). This Motion to Vacate turns on the issue of whether the assets attached in Trust One JJD and the Escrow are “due absolutely and without contingency” to Donovan Sr. and, therefore, subject to attachment under G.L. c.246 § 20. As will be apparent, neither of the Trustees possess credits absolutely due and owing to Donovan, Sr. and therefore the Motion to Vacate must be ALLOWED. STATEMENT OF FACTS As noted above, there are two attachments on trustee process at issue: one attaching assets in Trust One JJD, where Hurley is trustee, and the other attaching credits held in the Escrow by Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC, where Gooding is the Escrow Agent (for simplicity, also referred to as a Trustee). 1 In this action, Brining originally brought only direct claims against Donovan Sr.. At the hearing on the motion for the Attachments, the Court (Leibensparger, J.) observed that the principal claims that Brining was asserting against Donovan, Sr. were claims for corporate waste that belonged to nominal defendant Sendlater, Inc. and could only be brought derivatively on Sendlater’s behalf. The court nonetheless ordered the […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 9, 2018 at 3:07 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Xu, et al. v. Donovan, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-066-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1584CV01625-BLS2 ____________________ EDWARD XU ppa Li Chen, LI CHEN, and PETER XU v. PAUL DONOVAN, TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER PARENT, INC., and TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER INDEMNITY COMPANY, LTD. ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This dispute relates to a high/low agreement in a prior medical malpractice case. Plaintiffs had sued two doctors and a nurse who worked at Tufts Medical Center (“Tufts”). The parties to that prior action and Tufts agreed prior to the jury verdict that Plaintiffs would receive a maximum of $ 2.5 million for each defendant found to be liable and be paid $ 300,000 for each defendant found not to be liable. The jury found that the two physicians were liable for negligence and that the nurse was not. It award $ 24.43 million as damages against the doctors. In accord with the high/low agreement, Plaintiffs recovered only $ 5.3 million. Plaintiffs claim they were fraudulently induced to enter into the high/low agreement by representations that the available insurance was capped at $ 2.5 million per defendant, and that in reality there was an excess insurance policy that provided up to $ 30 million in coverage with no cap per defendant. They seek damages from the parent of the medical center (Tufts Medical Center Parent, Inc., or TMCP), the captive insurer that issued the primary and excess insurance policies (Tufts Medical Center Indemnity Co., Ltd., or TMCIC), and Paul Donovan, who is a Senior Claims Administrator for Tufts and signed the high/low agreement on its behalf. TMCP and TMCIC assert a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment stating that the total insurance coverage available for the claims in the underlying malpractice case, including both the primary and excess insurance policies, was capped at $ 2.5 million per person per claim or medical incident. TMCP, TMCIC, and Donovan move for summary judgment on all claims and counterclaims. The Court concludes that TMCP, TMCIC, and Donovan are entitled to summary judgment in their favor. The excess and primary insurance policies – 2 – unambiguously provide that the maximum coverage for the doctors and nurse sued in the prior action was $ 2.5 million per individual defendant. TMCP and TMCIC are entitled to a declaratory judgment to that effect. And Plaintiffs’ claims against all Defendants for fraud and for committing unfair and deceptive practices in violation of G.L. c. 93A, and its separate claim against Donovan only for negligence, all fail as a matter of law. 1. Parsing the Insurance Policies. 1.1. Reading Unambiguous Policy Language. “[C]onstruing the language of an insurance contract is a question of law for the trial judge,” and therefore is appropriate for resolution on a […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 14, 2017 at 11:44 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,