Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Boston and Maine Corporation, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-124-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 17-00153-BLS1 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY vs. BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION & others1 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, Boston and Maine Corporation, Springfield Terminal Railway Company, and Pan Am Southern LLC (referred to collectively as “Pan Am”). The dispute involves the implementation of positive train control (PTC), a safety system aimed at preventing train accidents. Pan Am alleged eleven counterclaims against the MBTA. MBTA now moves to dismiss three of the counterclaims pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The three counterclaims allege misrepresentation (Count VIII), promissory/equitable estoppel (Count IX), and violation of G.L. c. 93A, § 11 (Count X). For the reasons stated below, the MBTA’s motion to dismiss is allowed. BACKGROUND The facts as revealed by Pan Am’s counterclaims are as follows. The MBTA is a body politic and corporate and a political subdivision of the 1 Springfield Terminal Railway Company and Pan Am Southern LLC. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It operates bus, subway, commuter rail, and ferry systems in and around Boston, Massachusetts. The Pan Am defendants operate freight lines over tracks that, in some instances, are owned and/or used by the MBTA. Since 2010, Pan Am worked closely and cooperatively with the MBTA to plan and prepare for the implementation of PTC on tracks over which both parties operate. The parties worked to comply with a 2008 federal mandate requiring that PTC be implemented on certain rail lines, including lines that carry certain minimum levels of passenger traffic. PTC is designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments resulting from excessive speed, and other types of accidents. Generally, PTC uses a combination of on-board and rail-side technology to track and control train movements on the rail lines outfitted with this technology. In this dispute, the rail lines affected include both MBTA-owned trackage, over which Pan Am operates freight trains pursuant to a reserved freight easement, and Pan Am-owned trackage, over which the MBTA initiated and expanded commuter rail operations at the end of 2016. According to Pan Am, under federal law, PTC must be implemented on the rail lines at issue because the MBTA operates passenger trains on them. Absent the MBTA’s use of these rail lines, no PTC system is required. In addition, freight trains may not operate on tracks handling passenger traffic that are required to have PTC unless those freight trains are equipped with a PTC system that is compatible with the commuter rail’s PTC system. After the federal government imposed the 2008 PTC requirements, Pan Am alleges that […]
Categories: News Tags: 1212417, Authority, boston, Corporation, Lawyers, Maine, massachusetts, Transportation, Weekly
Police: Maine Man Charged with Breaking and Entering
A man reportedly broke into the laundry room of a South End building. South End Patch News
NES Rentals v. Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-133-13)
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‑11266 NES RENTALS vs. MAINE DRILLING & BLASTING, INC., & another.[1] Berkshire. March 7, 2013. ‑ July 15, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Mechanic’s Lien. Bond. Practice, Civil, Amendment of Complaint, Motion to dismiss, Enforcement of liability on bond, Commencement of action. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 21, 2010. A motion to dismiss was heard by Daniel A. Ford, J. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Andrew R. Grainger, J., in the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. John J. Ferriter for Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc. Peter F. Davis for the plaintiff. DUFFLY, J. We address in this appeal whether a subcontractor’s amendment of its original complaint to enforce a mechanic’s lien constituted timely commencement of its action to enforce a bond pursuant to G. L. c. 254, § 14, as amended through St. 2002, c. 400, § 2 (§ 14), which sets forth procedures for execution and enforcement of bonds to dissolve mechanic’s liens. The plaintiff, NES Rentals, Inc. (NES Rentals), filed an action in the Superior Court to enforce a mechanic’s lien recorded pursuant to G. L. c. 254, § 4, as amended through St. 1996, c. 364, § 5 (§ 4), on land owned by Berkshire Wind and Power Cooperative Corporation (Berkshire Wind). More than a year later, Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. (Maine Drilling), acting as principal debtor, and the surety, Berkley Regional Insurance Company (Berkley), executed and recorded a surety bond to dissolve the lien pursuant to § 14. The bond named NES Rentals as an obligee. Within ninety days of receiving notice of the bond, NES Rentals served on Maine Drilling and Berkley a motion to amend its original complaint, seeking to include them as defendants in its underlying complaint and to add a claim to enforce the bond against them.[2] After NES Rentals filed the amended complaint with leave of court, a judge denied Maine Drilling’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, explaining that although NES Rentals had not filed the amended complaint within ninety days of receipt of notice of the bond, service of the motion on the defendants within that ninety-day period provided the […]
Police Arrest Fugitive in Maine for South End Drug Crimes
The following information was supplied by the Boston Police Department. Charges listed do not indicate convictions. A Brockton man was arrested while in a Maine prison on Tuesday for defaulting on a warrant related to his 2010 arrest in the South End on drug charges. At 5 p.m. on February 19, members of the BPD Fugitive Units took custody of Edwell Gethers of 123 South Leyden Street, Brockton, MA from Kennebec County Jail in Augusta, Maine. Gethers had defaulted on a Boston District Court warrant issued on January 18, 2013 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Gethers was originally arrested on the evening of Friday, September 17, 2010 in an undercover drug operation in the Washington Street area near East Berkley Street. Police reported Gethers provided a bag of off-white rocks believed to be crack cocaine. Officers arrested four individuals as a result of this sting, including Gethers. Gethers was booked for the outstanding warrant and charged with being a fugitive from justice. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch