Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-017-18)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1884CV00268-BLS2 ____________________ MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY v. CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC. ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This lawsuit arises from the imminent expiration of a 15-year license agreement under which Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., has been operating billboards on property owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. The MBTA recently issued a request for responses by parties willing to enter into a six month license to operate the same billboards after the current license expires. The MBTA received bids from Outfront Media LLC, which agreed to enter into a six-month license, and Clear Channel, which refused to accept a term that short. The MBTA disqualified Clear Channel. It then awarded a six-month license to Outfront Media. The MBTA brought this suit seeking declarations that its request for responses was lawful, Clear Channel is not entitled to enforce its right of first refusal, and Clear Channel is contractually obligated to transfer the disputed billboards as well as whatever permits are needed to operate the billboards to the MBTA. Clear Channel has asserted counterclaims alleging that the MBTA breached the existing contract by offering a new license on terms that are not commercially reasonable and by not allowing Clear Channel to exercise its contractual right of first refusal, and that Clear Channel therefore has no contractual obligation to transfer the billboard structures to the MBTA at the end of the current license term. The MBTA now seeks a preliminary injunction that would bar Clear Channel from interfering with any use of the billboards on MBTA property, or terminating or otherwise disposing of its existing permits for billboards on MBTA property. Clear Channel seeks a preliminary injunction that would bar the MBTA from proceeding with the new license it has issued to Outfront Media or otherwise interfering with Clear Channel’s ownership of billboard structures and associated permits. The Court will ALLOW the MBTA’s motion and DENY Clear Channel’s motion. – 2 – 1. Legal Background. 1.1. The Public Interest in MBTA Advertising Revenues. The MBTA is a governmental entity, established by the Legislature as a “political subdivision of the commonwealth” that consists of 65 cities and towns within the MBTA’s service area. G.L. c. 161A, § 2 (political subdivision) & § 1 (defining the cities and towns within the “area constituting the authority”). The MBTA is now governed by the board of directors of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Id. § 3. “The MBTA’s essential function is to provide mass transportation services” in the greater Boston metropolitan area. See Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. City of Somerville, 451 Mass. 80, 86 (2008). The MBTA obtains most of its operating funds from taxes […]
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-006-18)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1884CV00268-BLS2 ____________________ MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY v. CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC. ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING CLEAR CHANNEL’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER In 2003 the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority granted Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., a 15-year license to operate billboards on MBTA property. That license will expire in early March 2018.1 The MBTA recently issued a request for responses by parties willing to enter into a six month license to operate the same billboards beginning after the Clear Channel license expires. The MBTA received bids from Outfront Media LLC, which agreed to enter into a six-month license, and Clear Channel, which refused to accept a term that short. The MBTA disqualified Clear Channel. It intends to award a six-month license to Outfront Media. The MBTA brought this action. It seeks declarations that its recent request for responses is lawful, Clear Channel is not entitled to enforce a right of first refusal contained in its 2003 license, and neither of these disputes is subject to the arbitration clause in the 2003 license. It also seeks certain preliminary injunctive relief to enforce terms of the parties’ existing license. The parties agreed upon a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for a preliminary injunction, with a hearing on those motions now scheduled for February 22. Clear Channel has filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order that would bar the MBTA from taking any steps to license its billboards to or contract with Outfront Media, or from “interfering in any way with Clear Channel’s rights in the billboards themselves or the permits necessary to operate those billboards.” The Court will DENY this motion for a TRO because Clear Channel has not met its burden of showing that it is entitled to the requested relief. “A preliminary 1 The parties have submitted two different versions of their license. One states that it terminates on March 3, the other says March 5. – 2 – injunction [or a TRO] is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To the contrary, “the significant remedy of a preliminary injunction should not be granted unless the plaintiffs [have] made a clear showing of entitlement thereto.” Student No. 9 v. Board of Educ., 440 Mass. 752, 762 (2004). Clear Channel has not yet made such a showing. 1. Clear Channel Has Asserted No Claims. Clear Channel’s request for injunctive relief is premature because Clear Channel has not asserted any counterclaims or any other kind of affirmative claim against the MBTA. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, “the applicant must show a likelihood of success on the merits […]
Clairmont, et al. v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-039-17)
1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS PLYMOUTH, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00505 FRANCIS CLAIRMONT AND GEORGE CLAIRMONT vs. AMER SPORTS WINTER & OUTDOOR COMPANY & another1 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT, AMER SPORTS WINTER & OUTDOOR COMPANY’S, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action arises out of a January 15, 2011 incident in which the plaintiff, Francis Clairmont (“Clairmont’), tripped and fell while wearing a pair of boots manufactured by defendant Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company (“Amer Sports”). Clairmont’s Complaint against Amer Sports alleges negligence (Count I), defective design (Count II), breach of warranty (Count III), and failure to warn (Count IV) in connection her accident. Clairmont’s husband and co-plaintiff, George Clairmont, also asserts a claim for loss of consortium in the Complaint (Count IX). This matter is before the Court on Amer Sports’ motion for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs’ claims. For the following reasons, Amer Sports’ motion is ALLOWED. BACKGROUND The following relevant facts are either undisputed or presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in accordance with the dictates of Mass. R. Civ. P. 56. On or about January 15, 2011, Plaintiff Francis Clairmont (“Francis”) was shopping at the Derby Street Shoppes in Hingham. She was wearing a pair of Solomon Gore-tex Contragrip 1 Eastern Mountain Sports, Inc. 2 ankle high hiking boots (“the Boots”) at the time. Amer Sports manufactured the Boots. The Boots have a “speed lacing” design, which includes a rigid J-shaped hook comprised of a curved neck and a fastening tail, through which the laces pass to tie each of the Boots. As Francis exited the store, the lace of the left boot caught on the hook of her right boot. She fell forward as her legs became entangled and was injured. Plaintiffs present no expert testimony on the design of the speed laces, and have adduced no evidence that Amer Sports knew, or had reason to know, of any similar accidents or occurrences caused by the speed laces. Amer Sports contends that manufacturers have used the patented speed lacing design for more than one-hundred years, and that this design is popular on hiking boots, work boots, and ice skates. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also DuPont v. Commissioner of Corr., 448 Mass. 389, 397 (2007). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there is no triable issue and he or she is entitled to judgment. Ng Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Cranney, 436 Mass. […]
Outdoor Latin Series Comes to South End
What's better than a free Latin concert? A free outdoors Latin concert right here in the South End. Taking place on three Thursdays in July and August at outdoor locations across the South End will be three concerts from the Tito Puente Latin South End Patch News
Drive-Ins and Outdoor Films Around Boston
Planning to catch up on movies this summer? Whether you're relaxing in an air-conditioned theater, watching an outdoor summer movie series in the park, or going the old-fashioned route and pulling up at a drive-in — here's a list of free outdoor South End Patch News
South End Restaurants with Outdoor Seating
Not sure where you can get a drink or a meal outside in the South End? The Boston Business Journal made the decision-making process delightfully easy for you. The BBJ released an interactive data map with the location of (almost) every bar in the Greater Boston area that has outdoor patio seating. On Tremont Street, there’s a huge patio with seating for The Beehive and Hamersly’s Bistro, both top notch dinner spots with the Beehive also carrying a lovely cocktail menu. Further down Tremont is Tremont 647 and Parish Cafe. On Washington Street there’s Toro for small plates and Stella for Italian, and in SoWa, there’s Gaslight and a newly opened patio at Cinquecento. Where do you go to have a drink or a meal outdoors in the South End? Tell us in the comments. South End Patch
Categories: Arrests Tags: Outdoor, Restaurants, Seating, South