Boston Segway Tours, Inc., et al. v. Danley, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-066-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIV. NO. 15-1498 BLS 2 BOSTON SEGWAY TOURS, INC. and IAN MEYER, Plaintiffs, vs. ALLAN DANLEY and EASTERA PHOU Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This case began as a dispute over ownership interests in a company, Boston Segway Tours, Inc. (BST) that offers Boston tours by the use of Segways. Plaintiff Ian Meyer claimed that he was the full owner, whereas the defendant Allan Danley claimed that he was the owner. Beyond the question of ownership, each party asserted multiple common law counts against the other, as well as violations of Chapter 93A. Following a jury -waived trial on the limited question of ownership, this Court issued a written opinion determining that Meyer was the full owner. See Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law dated January 12, 2016 (the January 2016 Decision). Shortly thereafter, Danley filed for bankruptcy and a Trustee was appointed by the Bankruptcy Court. The Trustee, on behalf of Danley, filed an Amended Counterclaim in this action. The case is now before the Court on Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Amended Counterclaim. Plaintiff seeks summary judgment in his favor on the following counts of the Amended Counterclaim: Count I (breach of contract), Count II (monies owed), Count III (unjust enrichment), Count IV (fraud), Count V (breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing) and Count VI (violation of chapter 93A). Before the hearing on the plaintiff’s motion, the defendant agreed to dismiss Counts IV through VI, so that those counts are no longer at issue. As to the remaining Counts (I through III), the defendant cross moved for summary judgment in his favor. The basis for these counts is Danley’s claim that he provided consulting services and equipment to BST and Meyer for which he is entitled to payment. Those counts also encompass Danley’s claim that he loaned Meyer $ 73,200 which has not been fully repaid. This Court concludes that Danley is entitled to summary judgment in his favor as to liability, with the precise amount of damages to be determined at later hearing. The Court reaches this conclusion based on the fact findings it rendered in its January 2016 Decision. As explained in that decision, Danley had originally formed the Segway tour company under the name Boston by Segway, but in 2011 decided to sell it to Meyer. This Court found that in order to facilitate that transfer of ownership: Danley agreed to lease his fleet of Segways to the new company and would front the startup costs by way of a personal […]
Nautical Tours, Inc. v. Department of Public Utilities (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-147-14)
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 SJC-11455 NAUTICAL TOURS, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES. August 20, 2014. Department of Public Utilities. License. Public Utilities, Sight-seeing vehicle. Carrier, Sight-seeing vehicle. Motor Vehicle, Sight-seeing vehicle. Nautical Tours, Inc. (Nautical Tours), appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court affirming a decision of the Department of Public Utilities (department) that it did not have jurisdiction to issue the type of license needed by Nautical Tours to operate its business in the city of Boston. Nautical Tours seeks to operate amphibious motor vehicles for sightseeing and charter purposes on the streets of Cambridge and Boston and the waters of the Charles River and Boston Harbor. The parties disagree about the appropriate license needed to operate in Boston. Nautical Tours contends that it must obtain a municipal street license pursuant to G. L. c. 159A, § 1. The department ruled that Nautical Tours was required to obtain a sightseeing license, which the Boston police commissioner has the exclusive authority to issue, pursuant to St. 1931, c. 399. We agree with the department that the Legislature established two different licensing schemes. Although a municipal street license is needed to carry passengers for hire on the public ways of cities and towns in the Commonwealth under G. L. c. 159A, § 1, a sightseeing automobile operating in the city of Boston must obtain a separate sightseeing license under St. 1931, c. 399. Because we further agree with the department that it did not have jurisdiction to issue Nautical Tours a municipal street license to operate its amphibious motor vehicles in Boston, we affirm. Background. In 2010, Nautical Tours filed a petition with the department concerning its proposed operation of amphibious motor vehicles over certain public ways in Boston. Nautical Tours asked the department (1) to exercise its licensing authority to issue a municipal street license under G. L. c. 159A, § 1; and (2) to amend the certificate of public convenience and necessity that it had issued in a proceeding in 2007, under G. L. c. 159A, § 7. In its 2007 order, the department concluded that Nautical Tours had not met its burden of demonstrating that it was able to operate its proposed plan, because it could not demonstrate that it had secured adequate financing. See Deacon Transp., Inc. v. Department of Pub. Utils., 388 Mass. 390, 394 (1983). To facilitate Nautical Tour’s ability to […]