City of Revere, et al. v. Massachusetts Gaming Commission (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-042-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12111 SJC-12177 CITY OF REVERE & others[1] vs. MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION. Suffolk. December 5, 2016. – March 10, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Gaming. License. Administrative Law, Judicial review, Intervention. Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari, Review of administrative action, Intervention, Interlocutory appeal. Jurisdiction, Judicial review of administrative action. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 16, 2014. A motion to dismiss the intervener’s complaint and a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint were heard by Janet L. Sanders, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review, and following the order by Sanders, J., for entry of final judgment, the Supreme Judicial Court granted a second application for direct appellate review. Kenneth S. Leonetti & Christopher E. Hart (Michael Hoven also present) for the intervener. Patricia L. Davidson for city of Revere. David S. Mackey (Mina S. Makarious & Melissa C. Allison also present) for the defendant. BOTSFORD, J. This case concerns the process by which the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (commission) awarded a gaming license in late 2014 to Wynn MA, LLC (Wynn). The plaintiffs — an unsuccessful applicant for the license, the city that would have hosted the unsuccessful applicant, a labor union, and individual citizens — filed two complaints in the Superior Court that alleged numerous defects in the commission’s process for awarding the license to Wynn. The commission filed motions to dismiss both complaints. A judge in the Superior Court allowed the motions on all but one count of one of the complaints, permitting only the unsuccessful applicant’s claim for certiorari review to survive. The parties now appeal various aspects of the judge’s decision. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings. Background. 1. Gaming in Massachusetts. In November, 2011, the Legislature enacted St. 2011, c. 194, An Act establishing expanded gaming in the Commonwealth (act).[2] Section 16 of the act created the gaming commission and set forth standards under which applicants could obtain a license from the commission to operate a gaming establishment. See G. L. c. 23K, inserted by St. 2011, c. 194, § 16. The act describes two types of licenses. The one […]
Categories: News Tags: 1004217, City, Commission, Gaming, Lawyers, massachusetts, Revere, Weekly
Korn v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-042-13)
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 12‑P‑432 Appeals Court LAWRENCE D. KORN vs. THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 12‑P‑432. Worcester. January 16, 2013. ‑ March 13, 2013. Present: Kantrowitz, Meade, & Agnes, JJ. Res Judicata. Judgment, Preclusive effect. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 20, 2010. The case was heard by James R. Lemire, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Jonathan M. Feigenbaum for the plaintiff. Joseph M. Hamilton (David L. Fine with him) for the defendant. MEADE, J. Lawrence D. Korn, a resident of the State of Michigan, appeals from an order that granted summary judgment to The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Paul Revere) on res judicata grounds. On appeal, Korn claims his present claim was not barred by claim preclusion, and the judge erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. We affirm. 1. Background. In 1988, Paul Revere issued a disability policy to Korn that would provide Korn, an attorney, with monthly payments in the event he became occupationally disabled and was unable to perform the “important duties of [his] occupation.” In 2000, Korn claimed that psychiatric problems, depression, and memory problems led him to abandon his law practice. In October of that year, Korn filed a claim for benefits under the disability policy. In 2001, Paul Revere denied Korn’s claim on two grounds: first, the evidence provided did not support Korn’s claim that he was unable to work, and second, Korn had not satisfied the proof-of-loss requirement because he failed to submit the information Paul Revere had requested. a. Federal court. In 2004, Korn brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (District Court) against Paul Revere for breach of contract, claiming that Paul Revere wrongfully withheld disability benefits that were due under the policy. In 2005, a District Court judge initially allowed Paul Revere’s motion to dismiss the suit as untimely under a contractual limitation period. In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit), in an unpublished decision, reversed in part and remanded the case to the District Court. On remand, the District Court required that discovery be completed by September 30, 2008, and that all pretrial motions be filed by October 30, […]