Rodriguez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-099-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-942                                        Appeals Court   RAQUEL RODRIGUEZ[1]  vs.  MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.     No. 16-P-942.   Suffolk.     April 7, 2017. – July 31, 2017.   Present:  Grainger, Sullivan, & Kinder, JJ.[2]     Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Contract.  Railroad.  Contract, What constitutes, Offer and acceptance.  Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 10, 2015.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Mitchell H. Kaplan, J.     Thomas G. Shapiro (Robert Richardson & Edward C. Cumbo also present) for the plaintiff. David S. Mackey (Christina S. Marshall also present) for the defendant.     KINDER, J.  In this case we address whether a public transportation authority breaches a contract with its commuter rail customers when extraordinary winter storms interrupt the service schedule.  For the reasons that follow, we conclude that in the circumstances presented here, it does not.  Accordingly we affirm the judgment of dismissal pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), for failure to state a breach of contract claim. On April 22, 2015, the plaintiff, Raquel Rodriguez, brought this action against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and its commuter rail operator, Keolis Commuter Services, LLC (Keolis), on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of monthly rail passes in January, February, and March, 2015.  The complaint alleged that the MBTA commuter rail service suffered severe delays and cancellations during the record-setting snowstorms of 2015.  Rodriguez claimed that these service disruptions were in breach of the MBTA’s implied contract “to provide timely, reliable commuter rail service . . . for January, February and March of 2015.”  In a comprehensive written decision, a Superior Court judge allowed the MBTA’s motion to dismiss.  Among other things, the judge concluded that even if the MBTA had some form of contractual obligation to its monthly pass holders, “the complaint fails to allege an essential element of a breach of contract claim:  an agreement between the parties on a material term of the contract at issue.”  This appeal followed.[3] Background.  We summarize the allegations in the operative complaint and the items appearing in the record of the case.  See Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474, 477 (2000).  The MBTA is charged by statute with providing commuter rail and subway service in eastern Massachusetts.  G. L. c. 161A, §§ 1 and 2.  The MBTA provides service […]

Read more...