Easy Access Distribution, Inc. v. Potter, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-053-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-1105 EASY ACCESS DISTRIBUTION, INC. vs. JASON POTTER, DAVID LESSOR and NOVUS DISTRIBUTION, INC. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The defendant, Jason Potter, was an employee of the plaintiff, Easy Access Distribution, Inc. (Easy Access). Potter, together with defendant David Lessor, formed defendant Novus Distribution, Inc. (Novus). Novus is a competitor of Easy Access. The case is presently before the court on Easy Access’ motion for a preliminary injunction, among other things, enjoining the defendants from competing with Easy Access or soliciting any of Easy Access’ vendors or customers. The motion is DENIED, for the reasons that follow. FACTS The following facts are drawn from the parties’ affidavits and briefly summarized only to the extent necessary to provide context to the court’s decision. Easy Access is a distributor of audio/visual (AV) electronic equipment. It purchases this equipment from vendors and sells it to installers, who install it in businesses and residences. There are a number of businesses who distribute/wholesale this AV equipment. It is a competitive industry. Potter began work for Easy Access in 2009. Prior to that time, he worked for another electronics distribution company. He was involved in sales, marketing and purchasing. Easy Access asserts that Potter signed a Proprietary Rights Agreement, which contains a covenant not to compete, when he first began work, although it does not presently have a signed copy of that Agreement. Potter attests that he signed only an At-Will Employment Agreement and never signed a Proprietary Rights Agreement or any other contract that contained a restrictive covenant not to compete. In 2015, Potter and Lessor, who had run an electronics integration company that installed AV equipment, entered into discussions with the owners of Easy Access with a view to purchasing it. In connection with those negotiations, they signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement. They returned all confidential materials shared with them by Easy Access when the parties could not agree on terms and the negotiations ended in April, 2016. On April 21, 2016, Potter sent Easy Access a resignation letter. He declined an offer to stay on for an additional six months. His last day at Easy Access was May 20, 2016. On that day he sent a blast email to his contacts (dealers and vendors) using his Easy Access computer in which he: thanked the recipients for their business; announced that he was leaving Easy Access; stated that he had the highest regard for Easy Access and wished it continued success; and stated that he planned on remaining in the industry and hoped […]
J.M. Hollister, LLC v. Architectural Access Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-121-14)
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-11473 J.M. HOLLISTER, LLC. vs. ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD. Suffolk. March 3, 2014. – July 10, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Architectural Access Board. Handicapped Persons. Administrative Law, Judicial review, Substantial evidence, Agency’s interpretation of regulation. Statute, Construction. Zoning, Variance. Words, “Entrance.” Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 25, 2010. The case was heard by John C. Cratsley, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Daniel P. Dain for the plaintiff. Douglas S. Martland, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Richard M. Glassman, for Disability Law Center & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. CORDY, J. This case turns on the interpretation and application of a Massachusetts regulation requiring that each “entrance” to a public building or facility be accessible to persons with disabilities.[1] See G. L. c. 22, § 13A; 521 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 5.1, 25.1 (2006). The Architectural Access Board (board) issued a final decision concluding that each of the three doorways of a retail store in Kingston, operated by J.M. Hollister, LLC (Hollister), was a separate entrance, and therefore that each doorway was required to be accessible to persons with disabilities. The board also denied Hollister’s request for a variance from compliance with the accessibility regulations. Hollister sought judicial review of the decision pursuant to G. L. c. 30A.[2] A Superior Court judge affirmed the board’s decision, as did the Appeals Court on appeal. See J.M. Hollister, LLC v. Architectural Access Bd., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 513, 524 (2013) (Hollister). We granted Hollister’s application for further appellate review and also affirm the judgment of the Superior Court, because the board’s decision was based on substantial evidence of meaningful differences in the use and functionality of the three doorways at issue, and because the denial of the variance was based on evidence of a substantial benefit of access for persons with disabilities.[3] Background. 1. Regulatory framework. General Laws c. 22, § 13A, empowers the board to adopt rules and regulations “designed to make public buildings and facilities accessible to, functional for, and safe for use by persons with disabilities.” See 521 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.1 (2006).[4] These regulations are intended to ensure that “all […]
South End Answers: Where Can I Grab Coffee and Access Wifi?
Ask a question you have about the neighborhood and get an answer in this weekly column. South End Patch News
Security, Access Changes For EarthFest 2013
There will be several changes to this year’s Radio 92.9 EarthFest at the Hatch Memorial Shell on the Charles River Esplanade this Saturday, including access and security. According to an e-mail Monday from the Department of Conservation and Recreation, there will be no backpacks, coolers, open containers, blankets or large bags allowed into the festival this year. All bags will be subject to a discretionary search and small bags as well as necessary items like strollers will be allowed in following searches, according to DCR. In addition, DCR there will be no access to the Fielder Footbridge at the corner of Arlington and Beacon Street. Attendees will be able to access the event from the Charles Street Footbridge and the Dartmouth Street Footbridge. Gates to the festival will open at 10 a.m. “Massachusetts State Police has teamed with DCR to ensure a safe EarthFest,” said Massachusetts State Police Supt. Col. Timothy P. Alben in the e-mail. “No specific threats have been made regarding this event, but safety is our highest priority, and we will continue to work with DCR to provide attendees with a fun and secure experience.” According to DCR, the Radio 92.9 EarthFest is “the largest free radio station concert in the country, showcasing national and local music acts, environmentally friendly products and local non-profit environmental organizations.” The lineup for this year’s show includes Vertical Horizon, Cracker, Gentlemen Hall, Fastball, Camper Van Beethoven and local group Todd Biggins Band. The music is expected to begin on the main stage at 11:15 a.m. More information on this year’s Radio 92.9 EarthFest is available on their website. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
J.M. Hollister, LLC v. Architectural Access Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-052-13)
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 11‑P‑1847 Appeals Court J.M. HOLLISTER, LLC vs. ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD. No. 11‑P‑1847. Suffolk. May 3, 2012. ‑ April 19, 2013. Present: Berry, Milkey, & Sullivan, JJ. Architectural Access Board. Handicapped Persons. Administrative Law, Judicial review, Substantial evidence, Agency’s interpretation of regulation. Statute, Construction. Zoning, Variance. Words, “Entrance.” Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 25, 2010. The case was heard by John C. Cratsley, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Daniel P. Dain for the plaintiff. Douglas S. Martland, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. SULLIVAN, J. The Architectural Access Board (board) issued a final order on May 26, 2010, requiring that the retailer J.M. Hollister, LLC (Hollister), make all entrances to its Kingston, Massachusetts, store accessible to persons with disabilities.[1] Hollister sought review in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, and a judge granted the board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm. Facts and procedural history. Hollister is a clothing retailer that leases and operates a store in the Independence Mall in Kingston. Hollister began operating that store in late 2005. When it took over the space within the mall, Hollister replaced the existing, fully accessible mall-level interior entrance with two adjacent doorways. The central doorway is a “California surf shack” entryway that consists of two steps leading to a roofed porch extending to the sides of the door and outward from the wall of the store into the mall. The porch contains large plants, pictures, and other decorative items. In other stores, the porches contain chairs and magazines for customers. At the back of the porch, on the left and right side, are two steps leading back down to ground level and into the store proper, one leading to the men’s clothing section (the “Dudes”), and one to the women’s clothing section (the “Bettys”). The second doorway is a ground level, unadorned doorway with a mechanically operated door, located to the left of the porch. To the right of the porch (at that time) were a series of windows extending to the floor with plantation shutters, and a fire door, built to look like the windows. The door on the left also is designed to look like the plantation shuttered windows to the right, […]