Care and Protection of M.C. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-054-18)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12339 CARE AND PROTECTION OF M.C. Suffolk. October 3, 2017. – April 9, 2018. Present (Sitting at Greenfield): Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. Impoundment. Minor, Care and protection. Parent and Child, Care and protection of minor. Constitutional Law, Waiver of constitutional rights, Impoundment order, Self-incrimination. Witness, Self-incrimination. Evidence, Communication between patient and psychotherapist. Practice, Civil, Care and protection proceeding, Impoundment order, Waiver. Waiver. Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on December 28, 2016. The case was reported by Lenk, J. Jeanne M. Kaiser (Bonnie G. Allen also present) for the mother. Mark H. Bluver for the father. Steven Greenbaum, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Scott R. Chapman, Committee for Public Counsel Services (Jessica McArdle, Committee for Public Counsel Services, also present) for the child. GAZIANO, J. In this case, we consider the appropriate standards and procedures for requests by the parties and the Commonwealth for the release of impounded records in a care and protection proceeding in the Juvenile Court. The mother and the father are the subjects of a care and protection proceeding commenced in the Juvenile Court by the Department of Children and Families (department), and are defendants in criminal child abuse cases pending in the Superior Court. The records from the care and protection proceeding, including the transcripts and exhibits from a trial to terminate parental rights, are impounded, pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 38, and Juvenile Court Standing Order 1-84, Mass. Ann. Laws Court Rules, Standing Orders of the Juvenile Court, at 1107 (LexisNexis 2016). The father sought access to impounded records from the care and protection proceeding in conjunction with his upcoming criminal trial. The Commonwealth also sought access to the records for its use in preparation for both the father’s and the mother’s pending criminal trials. The mother opposed portions of the father’s motion, and opposed the Commonwealth’s motion in its entirety. The child opposed the release of any records on privacy grounds. Concluding that both the father and the Commonwealth had met the burden of demonstrating that there was good cause to grant the requested relief from impoundment, a Juvenile Court judge allowed both motions. After the mother’s application for relief in the Appeals Court was denied, she […]
Marks v. M.C. LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-079-17)
1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-02775 BLS I LISA MARKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. M.C. LLC d/b/a JIFFLY LUBE MASSACHUSESTTS and JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL, INC. MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONS AND ORDER ON THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS This case came before the court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint. The gravamen of the individual plaintiff’s claim is that she brought her 2011 Hyundai Sonata to a Jiffy Lube operated by defendant M.C. LLC (JL) in Beverly, MA for an oil change. After changing her oil, JL affixed a sticker to her windshield that indicated that her car would be due for the next oil change in 5000 miles. The plaintiff alleges that this is misleading because the owner’s manual “prescribes that normal oil change service/maintenance is to be performed every 7,500 miles.” The plaintiff alleges that defendant Jiffy Lube International, Inc. (JL International), the franchiser for JL’s stores, is jointly liable with JL because it “has power and control over the oil change services offered at [JL’s] locations.” JL has provided the court with the entire owner’s manual for the plaintiff’s Hyundai and pointed out that the manual actually states that the oil should be changed at 7,500 miles under normal maintenance conditions and 3,750 miles under severe usage conditions. More specifically, it states that: “If any of the following conditions apply follow Maintenance Under Severe Usage Conditions.” It then lists nine conditions, including driving for a prolonged period 2 in cold temperatures and driving in areas where salt or other corrosive materials are being used: two conditions that presumably would apply to cars being driven in Massachusetts. JL argues that because the plaintiff has not alleged that she does not generally drive in these two conditions, she has not stated a claim that the 5,000 mile oil change interval recommended by JL is misleading because it is more frequent than that set out in the owner’s manual. The court finds JL’s argument persuasive. However, it also finds that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to allege that she drives the car in a manner which would suggest that the proper oil change interval is 7,500 miles and, therefore, as to her inconsistent with the recommendation found in the manual. JL International argues that the claims against it must be dismissed because no claim is stated against JL and also because the conclusory allegation regarding its ability to control the manner in which JL conducts oil changes is insufficient to state a claim against a franchisor for vicarious liability for selecting the oil change interval under established law. See, e.g., Lind v. […]