Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. City Council of Marlborough (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-162-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 14-P-1612 Appeals Court CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. vs. CITY COUNCIL OF MARLBOROUGH. No. 14-P-1612. Middlesex. May 11, 2015. – October 15, 2015. Present: Cypher, Meade, & Massing, JJ. Practice, Civil, Relief in the nature of certiorari. License. Municipal Corporations, City council. Administrative Law, Judicial review. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 12, 2013. The case was heard by Douglas H. Wilkins, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Carey H. Smith for the plaintiff. Cynthia M. Panagore Griffin for the defendant. CYPHER, J. Cumberland Farms, Inc. (Cumberland Farms), appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court upholding the denial by the city council of Marlborough (council) of Cumberland Farms’s application for a G. L. c. 148, § 13, fuel storage license. Cumberland Farms argues that the judge applied an incorrect standard of review and that he based his decision on improper factors. Background. Pursuing a plan for a gasoline station and a convenience store in the city of Marlborough, Cumberland Farms filed with the council applications for a special permit, see G. L. c. 40A, § 9, and for a fuel storage license, see G. L. c. 148, § 13. Two meetings of the council’s urban affairs committee were held between June, 2012, and March, 2013, on the special permit application; because the council did not consider the final conditions to the special permit, it issued by constructive grant on March 28, 2013. The urban affairs committee then discussed the fuel storage license application on May 21, 2013, and June 19, 2013, but failed to take action at the latter meeting. On August 2, 2013, Cumberland Farms filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking injunctive relief to require the council to take action. Before the complaint was considered in that court, the council voted on September 23, 2013, to deny the application for a fuel storage license, without providing any findings or an explanation of its reasoning. On November 12, 2013, Cumberland Farms filed in Superior Court the within action in the nature of certiorari, see G. L. c. 249, § 4, seeking judicial review of the council’s decision. Following a hearing on Cumberland Farms’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, a judge denied Cumberland Farms’s motion and affirmed the council’s decision. Judgment entered, and this appeal followed. Discussion. Cumberland Farms requests that the judgment be reversed, […]
Categories: News Tags: 1116215, City, Council, Cumberland, Farms, Inc., Lawyers, Marlborough, Weekly
Town of Hanover v. New England Regional Council of Carpenters (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-057-14)
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‑11396 TOWN OF HANOVER vs. NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS. Plymouth. December 2, 2013. ‑ March 25, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. “Anti‑SLAPP” Statute. Constitutional Law, Right to petition government. Abuse of Process. Labor. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss, Standing. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 6, 2011. A special motion to dismiss was heard by Robert C. Cosgrove, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Christopher N. Souris for the defendant. James A. Toomey for the plaintiff. Richard J. Yurko, Noemi A. Kawamoto, Sarah R. Wunsch, Audrey R. Richardson, & Susan Reid, for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. IRELAND, C.J. This case presents an issue of first impression: whether an association that has provided support for litigation, without being a named party in that litigation, has engaged in protected petitioning activities for the purposes of G. L. c. 231, § 59H. The defendant, the New England Regional Council of Carpenters, appeals from a Superior Court judge’s denial of its special motion to dismiss a suit by the town of Hanover (town) claiming that the defendant engaged in abuse of process in prior legal proceedings.[1] Because we conclude that support of litigation constitutes protected petitioning activity within the meaning of G. L. c. 231, § 59H, and that here, the town did not demonstrate that the defendant’s right to petition was “devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law,” Office One, Inc. v. Lopez, 437 Mass. 113, 123 (2002), we allow the defendant’s special motion to dismiss. 1. Prior litigation. We begin by briefly discussing certain events relevant to the defendant’s special motion to dismiss. In May, 2009, the town engaged in an open bidding process for the construction of the town’s new high school. Fordyce v. Hanover, 457 Mass. 248, 251-252 (2010) (Fordyce). The town awarded the contract to the contractor with the lowest formal bid, following which a subcontractor who was not involved in the winning contract filed a bid protest with the Attorney General. Id. at 252. After an investigation of the town’s bidding process and award of the contract, the Attorney General found that the contractor who […]
Attention Artists: Grants Available from Boston Cultural Council
Grants support a variety of artistic programs and activities such as exhibits, festivals, field trips, short-term artist residencies or performances in schools, workshops and lectures. South End Patch News
By: Becca ManningHow would you change the Boston Redevelopment Authority?Candidates for Boston City Council were asked that question at last week's
By: Becca Manning How would you change the Boston Redevelopment Authority? Candidates for Boston City Council were asked that question at last week's
Categories: Arrests Tags: asked, AuthorityCandidates, boston, By Becca, change, City, Council, Last, ManningHow, question at, Redevelopment, week's , Were, Would
Should the BRA Separate? City Council Candidates Weigh In
By: Becca Manning How would you change the Boston Redevelopment Authority? Candidates for Boston City Council were asked that question at last week's
Massachusetts Community College Council v. Massachusetts Board of Higher Education/Roxbury Community College (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-128-13)
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 SJC‑11250 MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITY COLLEGE COUNCIL vs. MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION/ROXBURY COMMUNITY COLLEGE. Suffolk. March 5, 2013. ‑ July 12, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Arbitration, Confirmation of award, Collective bargaining. Education, Public colleges and universities. Public Employment, Collective bargaining. Labor, Arbitration, Collective bargaining, Public employment. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 10, 2009. The case was heard by Kimberly S. Budd, J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Will Evans for the plaintiff. Carol Wolff Fallon for the defendant. Deirdre Heatwole & Joseph Ambash, for University of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. James B. Cox, Special Assistant Attorney General, & Alison Little Sabatello, for Bridgewater State University & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. BOTSFORD, J. The plaintiff Massachusetts Community College Council (union) and the defendant Massachusetts Board of Higher Education/Roxbury Community College (college) were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (agreement) containing a provision that “[t]he granting or failure to grant tenure shall be arbitrable but any award is not binding.” After a professor, who was a member of the union, was denied tenure at the college, the union submitted his grievance to arbitration. An arbitrator concluded that the college violated the terms of the agreement, and ordered as a remedy that the professor be reinstated to his position, and that he be eligible for a new evaluation and tenure review process. A judge in the Superior Court affirmed the arbitrator’s award. The judge reasoned that the issue before the arbitrator was the manner in which the professor was reviewed and considered for tenure, not the substantive tenure decision itself, and that the arbitrator’s decision was binding on the college. The college appealed, and the Appeals Court concluded that under the “clear language” of the above-quoted provision of the agreement, the arbitrator’s award was not binding on the college, and therefore the judge erred in confirming the arbitrator’s award under G. L. c. 150C, § 10. Massachusetts Community College Council v. Massachusetts Bd. of Higher Educ./Roxbury Community College, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 554, 562-563 (2012) (Massachusetts Community College Council). We also conclude that the Superior Court judgment must be reversed. Background. On January 8, […]
South End’s Ross Launches City Council Campaign
Long time South End resident Jeff Ross announced this week he would officially start his campaign for an at large seat on Boston’s City Council. Ross, a resident of the South End for the last 19 years, is an attorney in Boston, serves on the Democratic State Committee, and works as a local activist for LGBT rights. If elected, Ross, as an openly gay man, would be the first LGBT person to hold the at-large seat. “I’m running for the City Council At-Large because I believe our city is best served when it is represented by a diverse group that is reflective of the city itself,” said Ross. “While I’m not in the race to make history as the first openly gay At-Large city councilor, the significance of it is not lost on me. Boston is a city that is strong because of its diversity and I am excited about how my campaign is already bringing people together across identities to focus on the issues facing us all.” Ross said his main issues he wants to tackle would be to invest in small business owners, improve public school education make every neighborhood safer, and have each of Boston’s neighborhoods become a “destination” neighborhood. “Each neighborhood has differnet aspects of culinary, art, business, venues and theater, and I think that each neighborhood can become a destination neighborhood for the city,” he said, specifically mentioning improvements in transportation to Hyde Park and Mattapan. Ross also said he’d like to see more development in the city to help increase Boston’s tax base, and reduce resident property taxes at the same time. “I struggled to establish a life where I could support a family, and I want to create better opportunities for the talent that comes here to Boston from all over to stay in the city,” he said. Ross is one of about 20 candidates running for four at-large city council seats, including another South End resident, Michelle Wu. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
PHOTOS: Mayoral, City Council Candidates Parade in Boston
With Boston’s mayoral and City Council races heating up, many of the candidates turned out Sunday for Charlestown’s Bunker Hill Day Parade, taking advantage of an opportunity to get their faces and names out in the community. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
Lee and Linehan Will Face Off for South End City Council District
It’s official: As of Tuesday’s deadline for signatures, candidates Suzanne Lee and incumbent Bill Linehan had turned in the required numer of signatures to qualify for this year’s city council election. Lee, of Chinatown, and Linehan, of South Boston, are the only two candidates in the race for the District 2 City Council Seat, which includes the South End, Chinatown, South Boston and Bay Village. The 2013 race is an exact copy of the 2011 race, which Linehan won over Lee by less than 100 votes. “I am confident that my first six years in office will stand up in comparison to anyone who has held office both as a State or City elected official from the neighborhoods of South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Bay Village, Downtown and look forward to continuing my efforts and improve on my ability to deliver for the people of District 2,” said Linehan in a statement. “As I’ve continued to talk to residents throughout the district, I still hear concerns about jobs and liveable wages, about ensuring that every child has a quality education and about making Boston a place where families can find affordable housing options,” Lee said. “As City Councilor, I will build on my years of service to our communities and work hard to deliver the results that our families deserve.” The next step in the process is for the registrar to verify all 200 signatures for each candidate by June 25th. The preliminary election will be held on Sept. 24th, with the final election to be held on November 5. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
Two Candidates in Race for South End’s City Council District
As of Monday, May 13, which was the last day to pull nomination papers, two candidates were in the race for the South End’s District 2 city council race. Those candidates are South Boston’s Bill Linehan and Chinatown’s Suzanne Lee. If those names sound like deja vu, that’s because they are. The 2013 race is an exact copy of the 2011 race, which Linehan won over Lee by less than 100 votes. “I am confident that my first six years in office will stand up in comparison to anyone who has held office both as a State or City elected official from the neighborhoods of South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Bay Village, Downtown and look forward to continuing my efforts and improve on my ability to deliver for the people of District 2,” said Linehan in a statement. “As I’ve continued to talk to residents throughout the district, I still hear concerns about jobs and liveable wages, about ensuring that every child has a quality education and about making Boston a place where families can find affordable housing options,” Lee said. “As City Councilor, I will build on my years of service to our communities and work hard to deliver the results that our families deserve.” The two candidates have until May 21 to file their nomination papers at the Boston Election Department. Each needed 200 certified signatures to be elligible to run for office. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch