Posts tagged "Entertainment"

Garner, et al. v. Entertainment Management Complex LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-018-18)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1884CV00469-BLS2 ____________________ RASHAUD GARNER & ENTERTAINMENT ONE STOP SHOP LLC v. ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT COMPLEX LLC ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This dispute concerns the booking of private events at a public conference center in Brockton, Massachusetts. The facility is owned by Brockton 21st Century Corporation (“B21”), a non-profit organization that was created to help the City of Brockton with economic development activities, including the conference center and adjoining baseball stadium. B21 retained defendant Entertainment Management Complex LLC (“EMC”) to operate the conference center and stadium. EMC in turn retained plaintiffs Rashaud Garner and his company Entertainment One Stop Shop LLC (“EOSS”) to book events and provide event-related services at the conference center. The parties agree that EMC’s arrangement with Mr. Garner and EOSS was in effect at least until the end of 2017. Plaintiffs claim that in October 2017 EMC agreed to extend their contract through the end of 2018. They seek a preliminary injunction that would, in essence, require that EMC to adhere to that alleged contract extension. The Court will DENY the motion for a preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs have not yet proved that they have any likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claims. Cf. Fordyce v. Town of Hanover, 457 Mass. 248, 266 (2010) (vacating preliminary injunction because plaintiffs were “unlikely to succeed on the merits”). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To the contrary, “the significant remedy of a preliminary injunction should not be granted unless the plaintiffs had made a clear showing of entitlement thereto.” Student No. 9 v. Board of Educ., 440 Mass. 752, 762 (2004). Plaintiffs have not met that burden. Mr. Garner relies primarily on emails he claims he exchanged with Todd Marlin of EMC on September 20 and October 20, 2017. According to Mr. Garner, on – 2 – September 20 Mr. Marlin sent an email with the subject line “Q1, Q2 2018” and said “please go ahead and start booking events in the first quarter, second quarter of next year.” Mr. Gardner also asserts that on October 20, (i) Mr. Garner emailed Mr. Marlin at 1:49 p.m., stating that he wanted to book six bar mitzvahs at the conference center from April to June 2018, and (ii) Mr. Marlin replied at 5:55 p.m. by saying “Chris said it’s a go for 2018[.] Cool…see you then”. Mr. Gardner verified under the pains and penalties of perjury that “true and accurate” copies of these emails were attached to his complaint. He argues that the October 20 email constitutes an […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 1, 2018 at 11:23 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Showtime Entertainment, LLC v. Town of Mendon, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-113-15)

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   SJC-11770   SHOWTIME ENTERTAINMENT, LLC  vs.  TOWN OF MENDON & others.[1]       Suffolk.     March 5, 2015. – July 8, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Alcoholic Liquors, Entertainment.  Constitutional Law, Alcoholic beverages, Public entertainment, Freedom of speech and press.  Municipal Corporations, By-laws and ordinances.  Zoning, Validity of by-law or ordinance.       Certification of questions of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.     Thomas Lesser (Michael Aleo with him) for the plaintiff. Robert S. Mangiaratti (Brandon H. Moss with him) for the defendants.     SPINA, J.  We consider in the present case a challenge brought against a bylaw adopted by the town of Mendon (town) prohibiting the sale or presence of alcohol at adult entertainment establishments.  Showtime Entertainment, LLC (Showtime), seeks to operate such an establishment within the town and to serve alcohol on the premises.  It brought suit in Federal court seeking to invalidate the bylaw.  The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has certified the following questions to this court, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981)[2]: “1.  Do the pre-enactment studies and other evidence considered by [the town] demonstrate a ‘countervailing State interest,’ Cabaret Enters., Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n, 393 Mass. 13, 17 . . . (1984) sufficient to justify [the town’s] ban on alcohol service at adult-entertainment businesses?   “2.  If the ban is so justified, is it adequately tailored?”   See Showtime Entertainment, LLC v. Mendon, 769 F.3d 61, 82-83 (2014) (Showtime). The certified questions presented to us by the Court of Appeals focus on two parts of the test employed to determine the constitutionality of “content-neutral” restrictions on expressive behavior as first outlined in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).  See Commonwealth v. Ora, 451 Mass. 125, 129 (2008).  The four factors of the test are:  (1) the regulation must be within the power of the government to enact; (2) the regulation must further an important or substantial governmental interest; (3) the government interest must be unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and (4) the restriction must be no greater than is essential to the furtherance of the government interest.  O’Brien, supra.  We answer the first […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 8, 2015 at 3:11 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,