The case involves a Massachusetts resident suing a Kentucky horse farm owner and a New Hampshire stable owner under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act for unauthorized breeding of his horse, unauthorized fees, and refusal to return property. The court previously denied a motion to dismiss, and upon reconsideration, addressed whether a forum selection clause in the breeding contract required the claims to be litigated in Kentucky. The court enforced the forum selection clause, determining that the plaintiff's claims were closely related to the contract and that judicial economy favored consolidating all claims in Kentucky court, thus denying the motions for reconsideration that sought to keep the case in Massachusetts.
This case arose from the February 2007 arrest of plaintiff Erick Eason by Boston police officers following a 911 call, leading to his claims of assault and battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and related state and federal civil rights violations against the officers, the police commissioner, and the City of Boston. Eason also alleged municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to train and supervise. The court denied Eason's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants' motion to strike, while granting summary judgment to some defendants on certain counts and denying it on others, primarily due to disputed facts about the use of force and probable cause. It granted summary judgment to the commissioner and city on the Monell claim, finding insufficient evidence of a municipal custom or policy of misconduct. The rulings turned on the existence of genuine issues of material fact for trial on surviving claims and the lack of proof linking prior complaints to the alleged violations.
In Rodriguez v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., plaintiffs Ramon and Linda Rodriguez sued Samsung and Axcelis-Korea for negligence and loss of consortium after Rodriguez sustained back injuries from a falling truss while installing equipment on Samsung premises in Korea as an employee of Axcelis-US. Axcelis-Korea, a Korean corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary, moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court allowed the motion and dismissed the claims, finding no specific personal jurisdiction because the injury did not arise from Axcelis-Korea's contacts with Massachusetts, the defendant had not purposefully availed itself of Massachusetts law through its limited contract with the U.S. parent, and exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable as the events occurred in Korea with witnesses and evidence located there.
Jagex Limited, owner of the online game Runescape, sued Impulse Software and the Snellman brothers for copyright and trademark infringement related to cheatbots. The defendants moved for sanctions, alleging that Jagex violated a protective order in this case by obtaining customer information through a subpoena in a separate California lawsuit against cheatbot users. The court denied the motion, distinguishing the situation from prior cases where protective orders were circumvented, noting that the California subpoena was authorized, relevant to that proceeding, and did not violate the protective order limited to this case.
In Speleos v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., homeowners sued their mortgage servicer (BAC), the mortgage owner (Fannie Mae), and the foreclosure law firm (OrlansMoran) after their home was sold at auction while a HAMP loan modification application was pending. The plaintiffs asserted claims including negligence, breach of contract, violation of the duty of good faith, FDCPA violations, and unfair practices under Massachusetts Chapter 93A. The court allowed BAC and Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss the contract and good faith claims but denied it as to negligence and the Chapter 93A claim; it granted OrlansMoran's motion to dismiss all claims against it. The core reasoning was that a knowing foreclosure in violation of HAMP guidelines, after repeated notice of the pending modification application, raised a factual issue as to whether the conduct was unfair or deceptive under Chapter 93A, even without separate misrepresentations.
The case involved Fantastic Sams Franchise Corporation seeking a court order to stay an arbitration proceeding initiated by FSRO Association, Ltd., an organization representing regional franchise owners, who alleged breaches of contract and violations of Massachusetts consumer protection law. Fantastic Sams argued that the arbitration violated contractual provisions requiring individual claims and prohibiting class-wide arbitration in most agreements. The court allowed the motion to stay with respect to the 25 contracts that explicitly barred class-wide arbitration and required individual claims only. It denied the motion for the remaining 10 contracts with broad arbitration clauses that did not address class arbitration, holding that questions of contract interpretation and the applicability of class arbitration prohibitions were for the arbitrator to decide under the parties' agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act. The decision rested on the principle that arbitration is a matter of contract and that ambiguities regarding the scope of arbitration should be resolved by the arbitrator when the parties so agreed.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Affiliations
District Court, D. Massachusetts — appointed by George H.W. Bush
