Holland, et al. v. Jachmann, et al. (Lawyer Weekly No. 11-047-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 13‑P‑0280 Appeals Court RANDYE M. HOLLAND, trustee,[1] & others[2] vs. EMIL JACHMANN & another[3] (No. 1). No. 13‑P‑280. Hampden. January 8, 2014. ‑ May 14, 2014. Present: Kantrowitz, Vuono, & Sullivan, JJ. Consumer Protection Act, Unfair or deceptive act, Attorney’s fees. Practice, Civil, Consumer protection case, Attorney’s fees. Damages, Attorney’s fees. Contract, Performance and breach, Agreement not to compete. Attorney at Law, In‑house counsel. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 27, 2006. The case was heard by Peter A. Velis, J.; postjudgment motions regarding attorney’s fees were heard by him; and entry of a final amended judgment was ordered by him. Susan E. Stenger (Thomas T. Reith with her) for the defendants. George Stanbury, of California, for the plaintiffs. KANTROWITZ, J. Of significance, we are asked whether attorney’s fees for legal work performed by in-house counsel may be awarded under G. L. c. 93A. We hold that, in the discretion of the trial judge, such fees may be awarded. The plaintiffs (sometimes referred to collectively as Omniglow) brought the present action against Cyalume Technologies, Inc. (Cyalume), and Emil Jachmann, its chief executive officer (collectively, defendants), seeking to remedy the defendants’ efforts to undermine the plaintiffs’ business. After a seventeen-day, jury-waived trial, the judge found the defendants liable for numerous breaches of contract, conversion, and violations of G. L. c. 93A. Several posttrial proceedings ensued, concluding in a final judgment entered on August 1, 2011, largely in favor of the plaintiffs. Following the disposition of the postjudgment motions, an amended final judgment was entered on July 12, 2012. On appeal, the defendants raise many issues. While involved and complicated, ultimately they are of a garden variety, albeit weed-infested, and best resolved via an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to our rule 1:28 that is also being issued today. Holland v. Jachmann (No. 2), post (2014). As such, we concern ourselves here only with the c. 93A issues. Background. This business dispute arose out of a complicated transaction through which the Omniglow Corporation, a manufacturer of light sticks and other luminescent products, was effectively split into two companies. In late 2005, the company now known as Cyalume purchased the profitable segments of the Omniglow Corporation consisting principally of sales in the government, military, and safety (GMS) markets. As a condition of the […]