Posts tagged "League"

Trematerra, et al. v. Major League Lacrosse, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-033-17)

  COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-01140-BLS2 PETER TREMATERRA & ATLANTA LACROSSE CLUB, LLC, Plaintiffs vs. MAJOR LEAGUE LACROSSE, LLC, LAX UNITED MARKETING, LLC, MLL FOUNDING MEMBERS LLC, NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC., DAVID GROSS and JAMES DAVIS, Defendants MEMORANDUMOF DECISIONAND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS Major League Lacrosse, LLC (MLL or the League) operates a professional outdoor lacrosse sportsleague.  In 2014, Peter Trematerra entered into negotiations with MLL and its commissioner David Gross tointroducean Atlanta-basedteaminto the League.  After a year of negotiations, Trematerra formed Atlanta Lacrosse Club, LLC (Atlanta Lacrosse), which purchased an equity interest in MLL and began to operate a team known as the Atlanta Blaze.  In the instant action, Trematerra and Atlanta Lacrosse as the named plaintiffs allege that during these negotiations, Gross made several misrepresentations regarding MLL’s profitability and that he also failed to disclose, among other things, that the League had sold its broadcast and sponsorship rightsat far below market valueto companies owned or controlled by other MLL equity holders.  Plaintiffsfurther allege that, after Atlanta Lacrosse became a MLL member, theLeague’sBoard of Managers and Grossbreached numerousfiduciary and contractualobligations.  The defendants, which include Gross, MLL, and other individuals and entities, now 2   move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Mass R. Civ. P. 23.1 and 12(b)(6).  For the reasons that follow, this Court concludes that the defendants’Motion must be Denied, in partand Allowedin part. BACKGROUND The following is drawn from the allegations in the Complainttogether with the exhibits attached thereto. MLL currently has ten members, including Atlanta Lacrosse and MLL Founding Members LLC (MFM).  MFM owns five of the League’s fourteen Teams Units, which equates to 35.72 percent of the membership equity in MLL.  The remaining nine Team Units are each owned by Atlanta Lacrosse and eightother LLCs, which operate the League’s nine lacrosse teams.Defendant James Davis holds interests in some of these LLCs. EachMLLmember elects one individual to serve on MLL’s Board of Managers (the Board). Members approve or deny Board actions in proportion to their respectiveshares of equity.MLL is a Delaware LLC. In April 2008,several yearsbefore Atlanta Lacrosse became a MLL member, the League entered a Broadcast and Digital Rights License Agreement (the Broadcast Agreement) with defendant Lax United Marketing, LLC (LUM). LUM is an entity that was created to produce, market, and license television, internet streaming, and broadcast rights to League games and otherLeague promotional events. At the time, Gross, the League’s Commissioner and COO, was the president of LUM.MFM, defendant New Balance Athletics, Inc. (New Balance), and Davis, who had a controlling interest in New Balance,held equity interests in LUM.1 UndertheBroadcastAgreement, the MLL engaged LUM (among other things) to produce all League games and events and create […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 4, 2017 at 8:31 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

New England Patriots Fans v. National Football League, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-060-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1684CV03929-BLS2 ____________________ NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS FANS v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, ROGER GOODELL, and ROBERT KRAFT ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL Final judgment dismissing this action was entered on February 27, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 12, 2017. The Court allowed Defendants’ motions to dismiss the appeal as untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the entry of judgment. See Mass. R. App. P. 4(a). In its prior ruling, the Court explained that Plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion for findings did not toll the deadline for filing a notice of appeal because that motion was not served within ten days of the entry of judgment. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 52(b). The Court has no power to extend this time limit. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the order dismissing their appeal. They argue that they are entitled to the benefit of the “mailbox rule” because the final judgment was mailed to their counsel. Plaintiffs contend that their Rule 52(b) post-judgment motion for findings was timely because the deadline for serving that motion was automatically extended by three days under Mass. R. Civ. P. 6(d). This argument is incorrect. Rule 6(d) only adds more time to deadlines that allow or require a party to do something “within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other papers upon him.” But the ten-day deadline for serving post-judgment motions for findings does not start to run upon “service” of anything. Instead, such a motion must be served “not later than 10 days after entry of judgment.” Rule 52(b). The three-day grace period after mailing provided in Rule 6(b) therefore does not apply to Plaintiff’s deadline for filing post-judgment motions under Rule 52(b). See Commonwealth v. White, 429 Mass. 258, 261-262 (1999) (since period for filing notice of appeal starts to run upon entry of judgment, not upon service, mailbox rule in Mass. R. App. P. 14(c) does not apply); Goldstein v. Barron, 382 Mass. 181, 182- – 2 – 185 (1980) (since period for posting medical practice bond starts to run upon entry of tribunal’s finding, not upon service, mailbox rule in Mass. R. Civ. P. 6(d) does not apply); Flint v. Howard, 464 F.2d 1084, 1087 (1st Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (since deadline for filing post-judgment motion for findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) “begins to run from ‘entry of judgment’ rather than from receipt of notice,” mailbox rule in Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 does not apply); see also Smaland Beach Ass’n, Inc. v. Genova, 461 Mass. 214, 228 (2012) (judicial construction of […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 1, 2017 at 3:00 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

South End’s Animal Rescue League Adoptions Up 15 Percent

Thanks to a concerted effort by the Animal Rescue League of Boston, 15 percent more homeless animals have been adopted so far in 2013. South End Patch News


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 4, 2013 at 4:58 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , ,

South End’s Animal Rescue League Still Needs Homes for 400 Pets

The Animal Rescue League of Boston adopted out 800 pets this summer, but is still 400 short of its summertime goal. South End Patch News


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 27, 2013 at 3:52 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Patch Volunteers At Animal Rescue League

Eight Patch editors from all the Boston Patch sites spent Tuesday afternoon volunteering at the Animal Rescue League of Boston in the South End. Donning our Patch t-shirts, flyers, posters and three friendly dogs, we set out to get the word out to r South End Patch News


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 23, 2013 at 8:06 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,

$150K Bail for South End Little League Coach Arrested on Child Porn Charges

"Graphic and disturbing" images were found in the Union Park home of Andrew McKinnin's Thursday night. South End Patch News


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 19, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

South End Little League Coach Arrested on Child Porn Charges

Police and federal officers seized images from computers in a South End home. South End Patch News


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 19, 2013 at 1:34 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , , ,

New Public Art Unveiled at Animal Rescue League

Several hundred people came out in the heat on Friday to welcome a new privately funded, public work of at the Animal Rescue League of Boston in the South End.  The new statue, called “Dancing with Spheres,” was commissioned by Brookline resident Tony Lopes and designed by artist David Phillips to evoke a sense of kindness towards animals, Phillips said.   “My love of animals aligned with that of Tony’s,” he said. “When we both found that we loved animals so much we decided to approach the ARL and that’s the way it went,” he said.  Lopes, a retired teacher donated all of the money needed for the statue. How much was needed, he did not say. But he did say he was extremely pleased with the final result.  “He’s put so much extra effort into this work and I can’t believe how perfectly it came out,” Lopes said. “This incredible piece of work not only enriches the community, it enriches my life to know [Phillips.]” The statue features several happy looking animals jumping or playing on or near trees, including a dog and cat that are holding hands, a lounging bunny, a frog, turtle, and even a squirrel. “Not many squirrels are immortalized in bronze, I think,” said Phillips.  Phillips said the design for the statue was greatly influenced by the ARL and even the space where it now sits, as he designed the statue in a way that it can be see from Tremont Street outside the ARL’s dog play yard.  “‘Dancing with Spheres’ has a wonderful new home, and I am hoping a lot of people will see it,” said Phillips. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 31, 2013 at 9:59 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,