» Technology

Posts tagged "Technology"

Van Liew v. Eliopoulos v. Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-109-17)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 16-P-567 Appeals Court ROLAND VAN LIEW vs. PHILIP ELIOPOULOS; Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc., third-party defendant. No. 16-P-567. Middlesex. January 5, 2017. – August 25, 2017. Present: Green, Meade, & Blake, JJ. Libel and Slander. Constitutional Law, Libel and slander. Damages, Libel, Emotional distress, Remittitur. State Ethics Commission. Conflict of Interest. Emotional Distress. Practice, Civil, Judicial discretion, Instructions to jury. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 3, 2011. The case was tried before Kenneth V. Desmond, Jr., J., and a motion for a new trial or in the alternative for remittitur was heard by him. Brian C. Newberry for Roland Van Liew & another. David H. Rich for the defendant. BLAKE, J. In 2010, a bitter feud erupted between Chelmsford residents Roland Van Liew and Philip Eliopoulos. Van Liew commenced the dispute by accusing Eliopoulos, a local selectman, of shady political dealings in his work as a real estate attorney. After Eliopoulos responded publicly to the allegations, Van Liew filed in Superior Court this defamation action against him. Eliopoulos counterclaimed, alleging defamation on the part of Van Liew, and impleaded Van Liew’s company, Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc. (collectively, Van Liew). A jury subsequently found Van Liew liable for making twenty-nine defamatory statements, and awarded $ 2.9 million in damages. They found no wrongdoing on the part of Eliopoulos. The judge denied Van Liew’s posttrial motions on the counterclaim verdict,[1] and he now appeals,[2] challenging the proof of defamation on the twenty-nine statements. He also claims that the judge committed evidentiary errors and that the excessive damages awarded require remittitur. We affirm. Background. 1. Real estate development in Chelmsford. In the summer of 2008, Chelmsford real estate broker and developer Michael Eliopoulos, Philip’s[3] father, approached Eastern Bank about a historic home situated on a parcel of land it owned in Chelmsford center. Michael then negotiated the sale of an undeveloped portion of the property with Thomas Dunn, an employee of Eastern Bank. The purchase price was $ 480,000. Philip and his law firm reviewed draft agreements and served as real estate counsel. The sale closed on June 17, 2009, after which the 2.41-acre property became known as 9 North Street (the property).[4] During the real estate negotiations, until April of 2009, when […]

G4S Technology LLC v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-007-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2014-02998-BLS2 G4S TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff, vs. MASSACHUSETTS TECHNOLOGY PARK CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a contract-based dispute arising from a state and federally-funded project to design and construct a fiber optic network in western Massachusetts. Plaintiff G4S Technology LLC (G4S), the design-builder on the project, instituted the lawsuit claiming that the defendant Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation (MTPC) wrongfully denied a $ 10.1 Million “Request for Adjustment” claim and improperly withheld an additional $ 4.1 Million based on unfounded claims of late delivery and poor quality of work. MTPC counterclaimed, alleging fraud and violation of Chapter 93A.[1] In an earlier decision, this Court allowed MTPC’s motion for summary judgment as to G4S’s claims, relying on appellate case law which held that an intentional breach by one of the parties to a contract prevented it from recovering on its own contract-based claims so long as that breach was not de minimis. See Memorandum of Decision and Order dated March 29, 2016 (the March 2016 Decision). Now before the Court are two motions. The first is G4S’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on so much of MTPC’s counterclaim that asserts a 93A violation. [2] Among other arguments, G4S contends that MTPC is not engaged in “trade or commerce” and thus may not proceed under G.L.c. 93A §11. The second motion is brought by MTPC and seeks judgment in its favor on both the Chapter 93A claim and the common law claim of fraud. In opposing that motion, G4S argues that it is entitled to judgment its favor because MTPC cannot demonstrate that it has suffered any damages, particularly in light of the fact that it has already been successful in obtaining this Court’s ruling that G4S cannot assert its own claims. This Court concludes that G4S’ Motion must be Allowed, MTPC’s motion must be Denied and that both the 93A and the fraud counts must be dismissed. BACKGROUND MTPC is a state development agency established and organized under Chapter 40J. As stated in the enabling legislation, its purpose is to “foster the expansion of industrial and commercial activity and employment opportunities in the commonwealth.” G.L.c. 40J §1A. One of MTPC’s divisions, Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI), is charged with expanding the broadband infrastructure in Massachusetts. G.L.c. 40J §6B(b). In 2010, consistent with these purposes, MTPC received $ 45.4 million in federal funding together with additional money from the state to build MassBroadband 123 (the Project). The federal funds were stimulus money allocated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Project involved the creation of […]