Posts tagged "North"

Citadel Realty, LLC v. Endeavor Capital North, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-033-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   16-P-735                                        Appeals Court   CITADEL REALTY, LLC  vs.  ENDEAVOR CAPITAL NORTH, LLC, & others.[1]     No. 16-P-735.   Suffolk.     November 7, 2017. – March 19, 2018.   Present:  Wolohojian, Massing, & Wendlandt, JJ.     Practice, Civil, Interlocutory appeal, Motion to dismiss, Declaratory proceeding.  Lis Pendens.  Declaratory Relief.  Mortgage, Foreclosure, Discharge.  Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage.  Real Property, Mortgage.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 29, 2016.   A special motion to dismiss was heard by William F. Sullivan, J.     Jonas A. Jacobson for the plaintiff. Scott K. DeMello (Rosemary A. Traini also present) for the defendants.     WENDLANDT, J.  This appeal presents occasion to clarify the scope of this court’s review of an interlocutory order denying a special motion to dismiss brought pursuant to G. L. c. 184, § 15, the lis pendens statute.  Here, the defendants sought to dismiss the entire action, including (1) one claim supporting the memorandum of lis pendens and affecting title, and (2) other claims that were not the basis for the lis pendens.  We hold that our review is limited to those portions of the interlocutory order supporting the memorandum of lis pendens. Citadel Realty, LLC (Citadel), filed a complaint in the Superior Court against the defendants, seeking to void the foreclosure sale of Citadel’s real property in the Dorchester section of Boston (property).  In addition, Citadel sought damages and reformation of the underlying mortgages.  Following the filing of its verified amended complaint, Citadel filed a motion for approval of a memorandum of lis pendens, pursuant to G. L. c. 184, § 15(b), which was allowed.  The defendants filed a motion opposing the approval of the memorandum of lis pendens and seeking to dismiss the complaint, which was, in part, a special motion to dismiss pursuant to G. L. c. 184, § 15(c).  The motion was denied.  The defendants filed the present interlocutory appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss, purporting to appeal the motion judge’s decision declining to dismiss both the claim supporting the lis pendens and affecting title, and the claims that did not support the lis pendens. Background.  We set forth the facts from the verified pleadings and affidavits that were before the judge.  G. L. c. 184, § 15(c).  In 2011, Mario Lozano approached Endeavor Capital, LLC (Endeavor),[2] seeking a loan in connection with the property.  […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 19, 2018 at 8:43 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Clearwire Spectrum Holdings II LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-023-18)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS   SUFFOLK, ss.                                                                                   SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                             CIVIL ACTION                                                                                                             No. 15-3118 BLS 2     NORTH AMERICAN CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL  PROGRAMMING FOUNDATION, INC. et al.[1] Plaintiffs   vs.   CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM HOLDINGS II LLC, CLEARWIRE LEGACY LLC and SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., Defendants   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY ACTION   Plaintiffs are non-profit entities that hold licenses from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to operate Educational Broadband Services (EBS) channels in certain geographic markets.  In 2006, plaintiffs granted access to a portion of their wireless communication spectrum to defendants Clearwire Spectrum Holdings LLC and Clearwire, Legacy, LLC (Clearwire) pursuant to various written Agreements, including Master Royalty and Use Agreements (MRUAs).  The defendant Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Sprint) subsequently acquired all the stock in Clearwire’s parent, and a dispute arose between Sprint and the plaintiffs as to what services Sprint was obligated to provide plaintiffs’ customers.  Plaintiffs took the position that Clearwire had effectively sublicensed its use of the broadband spectrum to Sprint, and that, pursuant to the Agreements, this required plaintiffs’ consent – consent which they were entitled to withhold unless Sprint agreed to provide broadband access to plaintiff’s customers that was equivalent to what Clearwire itself would have provided had there been no sublicense. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in October 2015 seeking equitable relief and specific performance.  In November 2015, this Court allowed plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, concluding that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.  The injunction among other things required defendants to maintain Cost Free Educational Accounts (CFEAs) that entitle plaintiffs’ customers to access the Clearwire broadband network free of charge.  On June 24, 2016, this Court allowed plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count One of the Complaint, which focused on the single issue of consent.  After some period of negotiation seeking a global resolution, two of the six plaintiffs in the instant action filed arbitration claims seeking damages, the MRUAs requiring them to pursue any monetary remedy in that forum.    Defendants now move to stay this action until the arbitration is concluded.  This Court concludes that this Motion must be DENIED. In support of the motion, defendants cite the broad arbitration provision in the MRUAs and argue that under the Federal Arbitration Act, it would be an abuse of discretion not to stay the instant action because the claims its raises substantially overlap with those issues being presented to a three member arbitration panel.  A stay is appropriate, they argue, in order to avoid duplicative discovery and the risk of inconsistent results.  In response, the plaintiffs contend that there is no overlap between the claims that they assert […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 10, 2018 at 12:35 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Tradition (North America) Inc. v. Jampel, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-013-17)

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;   15-P-1543                                       Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH  vs.  TRADITION (NORTH AMERICA) INC.; RONALD JAMPEL & others,[1] third-party defendants.     No. 15-P-1543.   Suffolk.     October 5, 2016. – February 21, 2017.   Present:  Meade, Milkey, & Kinder, JJ.     Bonds, Tax-exempt.  Contribution.  Contract, Performance and breach, Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Indemnity, Bidding for contract, Misrepresentation, Unjust enrichment, Interference with contractual relations, Settlement agreement, Release from liability.  Indemnity.  Massachusetts False Claims Act.  Consumer Protection Act, Unfair or deceptive act.  Deceit.  Fraud.  Conspiracy.  Unjust Enrichment.  Unlawful Interference.  Release.  Limitations, Statute of.  Practice, Civil, Enforcement of liability on bond, Joinder of claims, Damages.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 5, 2010.   Motions to dismiss a third-party complaint against certain third-party defendants were heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J., and a separate motion to dismiss the third-party complaint against another defendant was considered by Paul D. Wilson, J.     John E. Roberts (Michael R. Hackett also present) for Tradition (North America) Inc. Joseph J. Bial, of the District of Columbia, for FSA Capital Management Services, LLC. Douglas L. Wald, of the District of Columbia (Kevin P. Martin also present) for Trinity Plus Funding Company LLC. Julia McLetchie for Steven E. Goldberg. Jeremy M. Sternberg, for Ronald Jampel, was present but did not argue.     KINDER, J.  The Commonwealth brought this enforcement action against the defendant, Tradition (North America) Inc. (Tradition), a broker for transactions involving municipal bond derivatives, claiming that Tradition engaged in bid rigging and other deceptive practices that harmed the Commonwealth in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, G. L. c. 93A, § 2, and the False Claims Act, G. L. c. 12, § 5B.  Tradition denied the allegations, asserting that it, too, was a victim of the alleged bid-rigging scheme.  Tradition filed third-party claims against individuals and corporations with whom it had consulted in the allegedly fraudulent transactions, including Ronald Jampel, Steven E. Goldberg, Trinity Plus Funding Company LLC (Trinity), and FSA Capital Management Services, LLC (FSA) (collectively, the third-party defendants).  The third-party complaint sought contribution from the third-party defendants pursuant to G. L. c. 231B, § 1(a), for any liability Tradition might have to the Commonwealth (contribution claims).  It also alleged various other claims, including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common-law indemnification, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 21, 2017 at 4:38 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

South End Chocolatier Expands to North End

One of the South End’s top chocolatiers will soon open a new artisan bakery cafe in the North End. Chef Lee Napoli, who owns the South End’s Chocolee Chocolates, will soon open “Bread and Butter” at 64 Cross St. in the North End, the former location of Cafe Graffiti. Plans for the space were first announced late last summer.  The new cafe will house 80 seats in a 2,500 space and will feature éclairs, croissants and handmade treats from Chocolee Chocolates. The menu will also include sandwiches, coffee and salads. Lee, an accomplished chef and pastry chef, previously worked for consulted for many of Boston’s top reastaurants, including Grill 23, Bricco, The Buttery in the South End and Sandrine’s Bistro in Cambridge.  SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 8, 2013 at 11:11 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , ,

Friends Raising $750,000 for North End Woman Injured in Boston Marathon Bombings

Friends of a North End woman severely injured in the Boston Marathon bombings last week are hoping to raise $ 750,000 to help her with hospital costs and other needs during her recovery. According to a post on, North End resident Roseann Sdoia had attended the Red Sox game at Fenway Park on Monday, April 15 and had walked over to the finish line at Copley Square to watch the rest of the marathon when she was injured by the explosions. “Roseann suffered serious injuries as a result of the explosions and has lost a leg above the knee,” wrote Christine Rousseau Hart, who attended high school and college with Sdoia. Hart posted a photo on the site that shows Sdoia watching the race in front of the restaurant Forum, standing three people away from eight-year-old Martin Richard of Dorchester, who was one of three people killed in the bombings. Sdoia reportedly has undergone several surgeries for her injuries. “It will be a long journey of recovery, both physically and emotionally, but Roseann is a fighter. She has an infectious personality and loves Boston with all her heart. She is a true Bostonian, living in the city and being one of the most loyal sports fans I know,” Hart wrote on Hart has set a fundraising goal of $ 750,000 and as of Monday at 11:30 a.m. had raised $ 208,676. She encouraged people to donate in memory of a loved one “whose name will help inspire Roseann through her treatment and recovery.” All gifts donated through the site will be transferred to Enterprise Bank for Sdoia to use for any expenses incurred because of the bombings. Donations can also be sent, with checks made payable to the “Roseann Sdoia Recovery Fund,” to Enterprise Bank, 1168 Lakeview Ave., Dracut, MA 01826. South End Patch


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 22, 2013 at 4:30 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

O’Neill v. School Committee of North Brookfield, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-019-13)

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;     SJC‑11108     ROBERT O’NEILL  vs.  SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF NORTH BROOKFIELD & another.[1]     Hampshire.     October 4, 2012.  ‑  February 8, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       School and School Committee, Superintendent of schools, Retirement benefits.  Contract, Employment.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 11, 2006.   The case was heard by Mary‑Lou Rup, J., on motions for summary judgment; a motion for reconsideration was considered by her; and entry of final judgment was ordered by her.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.       Brian M. Maser for the defendants. John J. Driscoll for the plaintiff. Sandra C. Quinn & Matthew D. Jones, for Massachusetts Teachers Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.       BOTSFORD, J.  Robert O’Neill served as superintendent of schools in the town of North Brookfield (town) from 1998 to 2005.  His employment contract provided that on his retirement, he would be reimbursed thereafter for a percentage of his health insurance premiums on an annual basis.[2]  The question we consider is whether an employment contract between a school committee and a superintendent that contains a provision for annual reimbursement of health insurance premiums in the indefinite future is invalid and unenforceable because it exceeds the six-year limit on such contracts imposed by G. L. c. 71, § 41.  We answer the question “No” and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. Background.  The school committee of North Brookfield (school committee) hired O’Neill as superintendent of schools in the spring of 1998.  O’Neill continued in that position until July of 2005, and during that time he was party to a series of employment contracts with the school committee.  Each provided that while employed as superintendent, O’Neill was to receive all employment-related benefits available to teachers, including health insurance coverage pursuant to G. L. c. 32B.[3]   On October 21, 2002, O’Neill and the school committee executed an employment contract with an effective date of July 1, 2002, and extending through June 30, 2005.  This contract contained for the first time a provision entitling O’Neill, on his retirement, to be reimbursed annually for a fixed percentage of the premium costs for an individual health insurance plan (reimbursement clause).  The reimbursement clause reads: “Upon retirement from […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 8, 2013 at 3:37 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,