Posts tagged "Matarese"

Barton & Associates, Inc. v. Matarese, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-021-18)

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT SUCV2004-0501-BLS1 BARTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. vs. JOSEPH MATARESE and MEDICUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC (f/k/a Medicus Staffing, LLC) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b)(5) On December 1, 2005, this court (van Gestel, J.) entered a Final Judgment concluding this case based upon a settlement agreement reached by the parties. The Final Judgment contained a number of elements, among them cash payments from the defendants, Joseph Matarese and Medicus Staffing LLC (Medicus),1 to the plaintiff, Barton & Associates, Inc. (Barton), and a permanent injunction precluding Medicus from hiring anyone previously employed by Barton. Medicus has filed the pending motion under M.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) requesting relief from the permanent injunction. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. 1 As noted in the caption Medicus has changed its name since the Final Judgment entered. The defendants will be referred to collectively as Medicus, unless it is necessary to distinguish between them. 2 BACKGROUND Barton and Medicus are both in the “locum tenens staffing” business. “Locum tenens” is a Latin term apparently originating in the Seventeenth Century generally meaning “a temporary substitute, especially for a doctor or member of the clergy.” It has more recently been used to refer to the business of temporarily placing physicians or other medical professionals with employers. See Wikipedia, locum tenens, last edited January 31, 2018. Barton was first established in 2001, and Matarese was among its first employees, serving as its Director of Operations. Barton maintains that Matarese was the author of its first business plan. In January, 2004, Matarese left Barton and formed Medicus, which began to compete with Barton and solicit its customers. In February, 2004, Barton sued Matarese asserting a number of claims all predicated on his having founded a competing business; in September, 2004, it added Medicus as a defendant. On September 22, 2005, just prior to trial, the parties reported to the court that the case had settled. That day the court ordered the parties to submit to the court a sealed letter that accurately described the parties’ settlement agreement. The order went on to explain that if the parties had not submitted an agreement for judgment within 45 days, it would open the letter and, if it believed it appropriate, enter a final judgment based upon the terms described in the letter. The parties submitted the letter, but were unable themselves to agree upon and execute the documents concluding the case. The court then opened the letter and entered a Final Judgment incorporating its terms. Medicus filed a notice of appeal from the entry of the judgment, but soon thereafter dismissed the appeal. The Final […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 8, 2018 at 11:32 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,