Hanna v. Williams, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-181-16)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 1684CV0722 BLS 1 Lead Case STEPHEN HANNA, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF NATHALIE ROTHBLATT vs. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, BRADLEY COOK, MICHAEL STARR and TAYLOR GANSON & PERRIN LLP Consolidated With: SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 1684CV0724 BLS 1 ELLIOT BERKOWITZ, STEVEN BERKOWITZ and ESTHER BERKOWITZ vs. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, BRADLEY COOK, MICHAEL STARR and TAYLOR GANSON & PERRIN LLP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Corrected Version) Alleged misconduct by lawyers and a financial advisor to cause a 91-year old, infirm woman to execute a new will six days before she died resulted in disputes over the distribution of her $ 12 million estate. The disputes among the possible heirs were, ultimately, settled by a compromise agreement. The probate court approved that agreement by a Decree and Order of Compromise. Now three of the heirs, who were parties to the compromise agreement, sue the lawyers and the financial advisor for intentionally and tortiously interfering with their expected 1 inheritance (Civil Action No. 2016 – 0724). The three heirs claim they would have received a much larger inheritance than what they obtained through the compromise agreement but for the conduct of defendants. Also, the personal representative of the estate sues the same defendants to recover the legal fees paid by the estate on behalf of all the heirs, incurred as a result of the litigation, allegedly caused by defendants’ conduct, over the distribution of the estate (Civil Action No. 2016 – 0722). Defendants move to dismiss all claims contending that (a) this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims as a result of the proceedings in the probate court, and (b) the complaints fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the complaints. For the purposes of these motions, the factual allegations, and reasonable inferences therefrom, are taken as true. Curtis v. Herb Chambers I-95, Inc., 458 Mass. 674, 676 (2011). Events Surrounding Execution of Will and Trust In 2013, Nathalie Rothblatt was a 91 year-old widow. On March 7, 2013, Rothblatt fell and broke her hip. She was taken to Beverly Hospital. At that time she suffered various other ailments such as chronic congestive heart failure, kidney failure and low blood pressure. She suffered from severe pain from the broken hip, as well as dizziness and difficulty concentrating. She was placed on medication including morphine and dopamine that affected her cognition. During her hospitalization she suffered bouts of disorientation, delusions, and confusion. She did 1 The financial advisory defendants also move to compel arbitration. See Part C of this memorandum. […]
Hanna v. Williams, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-181-16)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 1684CV0722 BLS 1 Lead Case STEPHEN HANNA, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF NATHALIE ROTHBLATT vs. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, BRADLEY COOK, MICHAEL STARR and TAYLOR GANSON & PERRIN LLP Consolidated With: SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 1684CV0724 BLS 1 ELLIOT BERKOWITZ, STEVEN BERKOWITZ and ESTHER BERKOWITZ vs. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, BRADLEY COOK, MICHAEL STARR and TAYLOR GANSON & PERRIN LLP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS Alleged misconduct by lawyers and a financial advisor to cause a 91-year old, infirm woman to execute a new will six days before she died resulted in disputes over the distribution of her $ 12 million estate. The disputes among the possible heirs were, ultimately, settled by a compromise agreement. The probate court approved that agreement by a Decree and Order of Compromise. Now three of the heirs, who were parties to the compromise agreement, sue the lawyers and the financial advisor for intentionally and tortiously interfering with their expected 1 inheritance (Civil Action No. 2016 – 0724). The three heirs claim they would have received a much larger inheritance than what they obtained through the compromise agreement but for the conduct of defendants. Also, the personal representative of the estate sues the same defendants to recover the legal fees paid by the estate on behalf of all the heirs, incurred as a result of the litigation, allegedly caused by defendants’ conduct, over the distribution of the estate (Civil Action No. 2016 – 0722). Defendants move to dismiss all claims contending that (a) this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims as a result of the proceedings in the probate court, and (b) the complaints fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the complaints. For the purposes of these motions, the factual allegations, and reasonable inferences therefrom, are taken as true. Curtis v. Herb Chambers I-95, Inc., 458 Mass. 674, 676 (2011). Events Surrounding Execution of Will and Trust In 2013, Nathalie Rothblatt was a 91 year-old widow. On March 7, 2013, Rothblatt fell and broke her hip. She was taken to Beverly Hospital. At that time she suffered various other ailments such as chronic congestive heart failure, kidney failure and low blood pressure. She suffered from severe pain from the broken hip, as well as dizziness and difficulty concentrating. She was placed on medication including morphine and dopamine that affected her cognition. During her hospitalization she suffered bouts of disorientation, delusions, and confusion. She did 1 The financial advisory defendants also move to compel arbitration. See Part C of this memorandum. 2 not […]
Commonwealth v. Williams (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-164-16)
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-11656 COMMONWEALTH vs. DEMERY WILLIAMS. Hampden. November 6, 2015. – October 17, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[1] Homicide. Robbery. Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Joint Enterprise. Felony-Murder Rule. Evidence, Joint venturer, Wiretap, Admissions and confessions, Expert opinion. Electronic Surveillance. Constitutional Law, Speedy trial, Confrontation of witnesses. Witness, Expert, Unavailability. Cellular Telephone. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Search and Seizure, Warrant. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Speedy trial, Admissions and confessions, Confrontation of witnesses, Instructions to jury, Assistance of counsel, Loss of evidence by prosecution. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 26, 2011. The cases were tried before John J. Agostini, J. Kathleen M. McCarthy for the defendant. Katherine E. McMahon, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. LENK, J. The defendant was convicted as a joint venturer of murder in the first degree, armed robbery, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon in connection with the death of William Jones in January, 2010. On direct appeal from that conviction, he argues that his motions for required findings of not guilty should have been granted, and that his case should have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds. In addition, he argues that certain evidence, including his statements to police, should not have been admitted at trial. The defendant also seeks relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Having reviewed the entire record, we affirm the convictions and discern no reason to exercise our authority to grant extraordinary relief. Factual background. We recite the facts the jury could have found, reserving certain details for later discussion. At approximately 8 A.M. on January 22, 2010, the defendant, an employee at a tomato processing plant in Hartford, Connecticut, told his supervisor that he needed to leave work in order to conduct a drug deal. The supervisor gave him permission to leave, and the defendant was picked up by Jones in a white Saturn sport utility vehicle (SUV). The pair drove to a house on Florida Street in Springfield, where Jones, a drug dealer, had been led to believe that he would buy drugs from Curtis Combs, an acquaintance of the defendant. The defendant, however, knew that Jones was going to be robbed. He went into the house to introduce Jones […]
Commonwealth v. Williams (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-051-16)
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 14-P-1111 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. ANTONIO WILLIAMS. No. 14-P-1111. Plymouth. November 17, 2015. – May 12, 2016. Present: Cypher, Trainor, & Rubin, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Plea, Sentence. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 26, 2010, and April 22, 2011. Motions to withdraw guilty pleas, filed on June 3, 2013, and January 30, 2014, were heard by Paul A. Chernoff, J., Special Judicial Magistrate, and an order affirming the proposed order of the Special Judicial Magistrate was entered by Frank M. Gaziano, J. Jason Howard for the defendant. Laurie Yeshulas, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. CYPHER, J. The defendant, Antonio Williams, appeals from the denial of his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 30(b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). The offenses were set forth in two sets of indictments that charged unrelated gun and drug crimes. The defendant argues that because the guilty pleas were based, in part, on drug tests performed by Annie Dookhan at the Hinton State Laboratory Institute (Hinton laboratory), the subsequent discovery of Dookhan’s pervasive wrongdoing requires the reversal of the convictions.[1] The first set of indictments (the gun case) arose after the police responded to a report of domestic violence at the home of the defendant’s girl friend on April 14, 2010. Upon their arrival, the police were informed by the girl friend that the defendant had threatened her. While there, police also saw loose ammunition and a loaded firearm, both of which the defendant admitted were his. The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm (G. L. c. 269, § 10[a]); unlawful possession of a loaded firearm (G. L. c. 269, § 10[n]); unlawful possession of ammunition without an FID card (G. L. c. 269, § 10[h]); and threat to commit a crime (G. L. c. 275, § 2). The first indictment, charging unlawful possession of a firearm, also alleged that the defendant previously had been convicted of three predicate offenses, namely, armed masked robbery as a juvenile, possession with intent to distribute marijuana and “crack” cocaine on June 21, 2006 (No. 0615CR4295) (the 2006 drug charges), and possession with intent to distribute a class B substance on July 29, 2007 (No. 0715CR005623) (the 2007 drug charges),[2] thus subjecting him to enhanced sentencing […]
Williams, et al. v. Charles, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-122-13)
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 12‑P‑1216 Appeals Court BRENT WILLIAMS, trustee,[1] & another[2] vs. JEAN BERNARD CHARLES & another.[3] No. 12‑P‑1216. Suffolk. April 4, 2013. ‑ October 3, 2013. Present: Kantrowitz, Brown, & Kafker, JJ. Practice, Civil, Dismissal, Standing. Corporation, Stockholder’s derivative suit, Close corporation, Derivative action. Fiduciary. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 28, 2008. A pretrial motion to dismiss was heard by Margaret R. Hinkle, J., and the case was heard by Douglas H. Wilkins, J. Leonard M. Singer for the plaintiffs. Richard C. Bardi for the defendants. BROWN, J. In this appeal, we consider whether the plaintiffs, members of a Massachusetts limited liability company, have standing to bring derivative claims on the company’s behalf against the company’s manager, as provided in the Massachusetts Limited Liability Company Act, G. L. c. 156C, § 56. Brent Williams, as trustee of Frowmica Nominee Trust, and Carlo Noel appeal from the dismissal of claims they brought on behalf of Frowmica, LLC (Frowmica), as stated in their second amended verified complaint (second amended complaint), against the defendants, Jean Bernard Charles and Frowmica. The issue of standing turns primarily on whether Williams’s contribution to Frowmica, which was in the form of services rather than cash, should be included in calculating the votes of the members in favor of authorizing the derivative suit under the statute. We also consider whether the ownership interest of Charles’s mother, Anna Charles, should be deemed adverse to interests of Frowmica, and her interest therefore excluded from the vote, because of her relationship with Charles. We affirm. 1. Background. We take the facts from the second amended complaint. Frowmica was organized as a limited liability company pursuant to G. L. c. 156C, and in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the “Frowmica Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement” (operating agreement). The purpose of Frowmica was to own and operate a taxicab business. To that end, Diamond Universal Corporation (Diamond) set out to purchase the assets of Bay State Taxi LLC (Bay State), and formed Frowmica to negotiate and finance the purchase. Diamond raised capital for the transaction, with the understanding that it would reserve a 32.93 percent ownership interest in Frowmica for itself, which was subsequently reduced to 31.29, and would allocate the remainder […]
T. Butera Auburn, LLC, et al. v. Williams, et al. (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-051-13)
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 11‑P‑1230 Appeals Court T. BUTERA AUBURN, LLC, & another[1] vs. ROSEMARIE WILLIAMS & another[2] (and a companion case[3]). No. 11‑P‑1230. Worcester. May 1, 2012. ‑ April 17, 2013. Present: Green, Grainger, & Rubin, JJ. Veterinarian. Contract, Performance and breach, Damages. Consumer Protection Act, Unfair or deceptive act, Damages, Attorney’s fees. Damages, Consumer protection case. Practice, Civil, Costs. Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 31 and August 23, 2007, respectively. After consolidation, the breach of contract and G. L. c. 93A claims were tried before John S. McCann, J.; following trial, the remaining claims were heard by him on a motion for summary judgment. Stephen J. Waite for T. Butera Auburn, LLC, & others. Jessica Parenti for Rosemarie Williams & another. RUBIN, J. These cross appeals stem from litigation over the sale of a veterinary practice. The issues appealed relate to breach of contract and G. L. c. 93A, § 11. Background. Rosemarie Williams and Feline Health, Inc. (collectively, Williams), operated a feline veterinary practice in Auburn named The Cat Hospital of Auburn (TCH). TCH was licensed by the Department of Public Health to handle radioactive material, iodine-131 (I-131), in order to treat cats using radioactive chemicals. There are few veterinary practices in the Commonwealth that are licensed to conduct feline nuclear medicine, which arguably made TCH a valuable prospective acquisition for the purchasers, T. Butera Auburn, LLC, and S. Thomas Butera (collectively, Butera). The radioactive materials handling license listed TCH as the licensee, and “Rosemarie M. Williams, D.V.M.,” as the supervisor and “Radiation Safety Officer.” The parties signed an asset purchase agreement (APA), by which Butera purchased TCH’s assets for $ 800,000 cash and a promissory note (Note) whereby Butera would pay Williams an additional $ 400,000 over fifteen years. As part of the transaction, the parties also signed an employment agreement, and Williams became employed by Butera on an at-will basis. The APA contained a two-year noncompetition/nonsolicitation provision encompassing an area with a thirty-mile radius extending from TCH. This noncompetition clause proscribed the solicitation by Williams of Butera’s clients and any action by Williams that would “directly or indirectly . . . impair the goodwill” or “the business reputation or good name” of Butera, or “be otherwise detrimental to” Butera. In addition, under the APA, Butera […]