Mary M. Lisi

This case involves ten minor children (and a proposed class) who were removed from their homes and placed in Rhode Island DCYF custody due to suspected abuse or neglect; they sued state officials to reform the child welfare system, alleging inadequate foster placements, institutionalization, and failures to provide suitable care under federal statutes like the AACWA and the Constitution. After an earlier dismissal for lack of standing by next friends was reversed on appeal, the court addressed the defendants' second motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying doctrines such as Younger abstention to certain claims while permitting others to proceed, including those asserting privately enforceable rights to foster-care maintenance payments. The decision turned on whether the plaintiffs had viable causes of action under federal law and whether federal courts should intervene in ongoing state family-court matters.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a challenge by a Rhode Island hospitality trade association and two Providence hotels to a city ordinance requiring certain employee retention for a limited period following a change in ownership or management of hospitality businesses. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act under Garmon and Machinists preemption doctrines, as it interfered with collective bargaining, successor employer obligations, and existing contracts, and also violated the Contracts Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and home rule authority. After the city amended the ordinance to shorten the retention period, eliminate minimum wage rules, exclude supervisors, and exempt certain venues like the convention center, the court evaluated the claims on stipulated facts, distinguishing between voluntary hiring and mandated retention while assessing whether the rules set minimum labor standards exempt from preemption.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involves a dispute between Chopmist Hill Fire Department, a nonprofit volunteer fire company leasing a station from the Town of Scituate for $1 per year, and the Town and its officials over the Town's actions to evict the department and seize equipment following unionization efforts by emergency medical technicians. The fire department sued alleging violations of federal and state law, including claims related to the lease, property seizure, and statements by town officials. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied the plaintiff's motion entirely and granted the defendants' motion in part while denying it in part, dismissing certain claims such as malicious prosecution and Rhode Island Open Meetings Law violations, as well as replevin claims for some vehicles, but allowing others to proceed. The decision applied standard summary judgment rules, requiring admissible evidence of genuine material fact disputes and finding insufficient support for the plaintiff's positions on several issues while noting third-party standing limitations on First Amendment claims.

labor & employmentproperty

The case involves a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) over whether the Bristol Warren Regional School District must provide a student, S.E., with special education services including residential placement and compensatory education. After an impartial hearing officer ruled in favor of the student and her parent, the school appealed the decision while the parent sought attorney's fees as the prevailing party; the matters were consolidated for review. The district court granted summary judgment to the parent, affirming the hearing officer's determination that the school must provide the requested services. The core reasoning centered on the administrative record showing that S.E.'s behavioral and emotional needs could not be adequately met in a non-residential setting, making the hearing officer's findings supported by the evidence under IDEA standards.

civil rights

This case arose from a high-speed police pursuit in Pawtucket that began after officers spotted a teal car matching a robbery BOLO and ended when the fleeing vehicle ran a red light, causing a crash that killed passenger Jason Goncalves. Goncalves's estate sued the involved officers, the Pawtucket Police Department, the City, and the police chief, alleging deprivation of constitutional due process rights under federal law as well as state-law negligence. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court reviewed the officers' and witnesses' accounts of when the pursuit began, whether lights and sirens were activated, and the distance maintained, then granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerns Ashland, Inc.'s effort to recover from other parties costs it claims to have incurred voluntarily for groundwater remediation at the Davis Site, a CERCLA hazardous waste disposal site in Rhode Island. After prior litigation established liability and cost allocations among responsible parties, including through consent decrees and trials involving UTC and others, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the effect of UTC's settlement with the United States and the applicability of earlier response cost allocations. The court denied the motions for summary judgment.

environment

This case involves Dora Figueiredo challenging the termination of her long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan funded by a policy from Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA), governed by ERISA. After removing the case to federal court, LINA moved for summary judgment, and Figueiredo filed a cross-motion; the court had previously determined that de novo review applied rather than deferential review. Upon reviewing the administrative record, the court found that LINA's decision to terminate benefits was erroneous because the evidence showed Figueiredo remained unable to perform any occupation for which she was qualified due to her knee and related conditions. The court therefore denied LINA's motion, granted Figueiredo's motion, and awarded her retroactive disability benefits from December 2005 onward, continuing until eligibility ends, subject to future proof of disability.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Allstate sought a declaratory judgment against its insureds, the Bonns, and intervening claimants, the Jessups, regarding the limits of a landlords package policy. The underlying state-court action alleged that the Jessups' two minor children suffered lead poisoning from exposure to hazardous lead paint during their tenancy at the Bonns' rental property. Allstate argued that the policy's $100,000 per-occurrence limit for business liability coverage applied to the children's injuries as a single loss, while the Jessups contended that separate $100,000 limits applied to each child for a total of $200,000. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment and denied the Jessups' cross-motion, reasoning that the policy's unambiguous language defines all bodily injury from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions as the result of one loss, and the children's injuries arose from the same unabated lead hazards at the property.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

The case was a breach of contract dispute between ADP Marshall, Inc. and Noresco, LLC stemming from the construction of a cogeneration facility under a 2002 agreement, where ADPM sought payment for unpaid labor, materials, and scope increases, and Noresco asserted counterclaims for contract breaches along with claims involving payment and performance bonds issued by sureties. Following an eight-day bench trial with extensive exhibits and witness testimony, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), calculating amounts owed for approved and disputed change orders. The court determined that ADPM was entitled to $26,886 for certain deviations and clean-up costs not already included in the fixed contract price, while noting direct payments by Noresco to subcontractors and unresolved issues with bond claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Kathleen Kindelan, who sought short-term disability benefits under her employer's ERISA-governed plan after a flare-up of chronic back and neck issues prevented her from working as a Clinical Care Manager. The plan administrator, Disability Management Alternatives, initially approved but then denied her claim, a decision upheld on internal appeal; Kindelan sued for judicial review after exhausting remedies. The court applied ERISA's deferential standard of review, assessing whether the administrator's denial was arbitrary and capricious based on the administrative record, including medical evidence from her treating physician. It granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, concluding that the record supported the administrator's determination that she did not meet the plan's disability criteria.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves a dispute over the termination of long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan governed by ERISA. The plaintiff, a former employee, challenged the insurer's decision to end her benefits after several years, following state-law claims that were removed to federal court and preempted by ERISA. The court determined that the plan administrator's decision is subject to de novo review because the policy language does not grant discretionary authority. It therefore directed the parties to submit additional memoranda addressing whether the termination was erroneous under that standard and what remedy, if any, should follow.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case is a federal declaratory judgment action in which plaintiff OHI Asset, as successor owner of property in Rhode Island, seeks a ruling that it is not required to pay a one-time continuation fee to defendant WMIA for ongoing use of a private sewer system under three prior agreements, as opposed to ordinary connection or usage fees. Defendant WMIA moved to dismiss or stay the action on abstention grounds, arguing that the issues should be resolved in a pending state-court trusteeship proceeding over WMIA and the sewer system. The magistrate judge recommended denial, finding no parallel state proceeding existed at the time the federal suit was filed and that Burford abstention did not apply because the trusteeship action was not a complex state administrative process. The district court adopted the recommendation in full and denied the motion. The core reasoning focused on the timing of the parallel-action analysis and the limited scope of federal abstention doctrines when the state matter lacks the characteristics of an ordinary civil or regulatory proceeding.

procedureproperty

The case involved Juan Gonzalez, owner of Gonzalez Grocery, a Rhode Island store participating in the federal Food Stamp Program, challenging the USDA's permanent disqualification for alleged trafficking violations based on multiple large or rapid withdrawals from recipient accounts. The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss the entire complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Counts seeking de novo reversal of the agency decision and review under the Administrative Procedure Act were dismissed because the suit was filed more than ten months after the statutory 30-day deadline for appeal, and the plaintiff did not qualify for equitable tolling despite claiming limited English proficiency. The due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was dismissed because that statute does not authorize suits against the United States.

business & regulatorycivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves Rhode Island Environmental Police Officers challenging wage practices by the Department of Environmental Management under the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically unpaid lunch periods and holiday pay in retirement contributions. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, while the defendants moved to dismiss the FLSA claim. The court denied the motion to remand and granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the state is protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from FLSA suits in federal court, and that removal does not waive this immunity.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a medical negligence lawsuit brought by the estate of a patient who died after receiving emergency care at Kent County Memorial Hospital, including federal claims under EMTALA for inadequate screening and stabilization as well as state-law claims for negligence and lack of informed consent. The plaintiff sought to compel deposition testimony from the hospital's emergency department director about whether the treating physician met departmental standards of care, but the hospital objected based on Rhode Island's peer-review privilege protecting internal review findings. The magistrate judge denied the motion to compel, and the district court affirmed that ruling on appeal. The court reasoned that the requested information was relevant only to the state-law malpractice claims, so the state peer-review privilege applied and was not overridden by the presence of the EMTALA claims; the plaintiff's medical records already provided the facts needed for the federal claims.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. DiTomasso, the defendant, previously convicted of sex offenses in Massachusetts and registered there, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failing to register after relocating to Rhode Island, which had not fully implemented SORNA. He moved to dismiss the indictment, raising challenges under the Due Process Clause, Ex Post Facto Clause, Commerce Clause, right to travel, Tenth Amendment, separation of powers, and the Administrative Procedure Act regarding the Attorney General's 2007 interim rule. The district court denied the motion in full. The court reasoned that SORNA's individual registration requirements applied directly to pre-enactment offenders through the statute's text and the Attorney General's rule, and that the interstate travel element provided a valid basis for federal jurisdiction without violating the cited constitutional provisions.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over whether Getty Properties Corporation, which holds a usage right on the north side of the Wilkesbarre Pier owned by Dunellen LLC, must contribute to the pier's repair and maintenance expenses. The matter, removed to federal court on diversity grounds, involves cross-motions for partial summary judgment addressing the parties' rights and obligations under historical pier operating agreements, a 1997 settlement agreement following corporate spin-offs, and prior litigation classifying the pier as personal property. The court examined the pier's ownership history dating to the 1870s, the terms of usage agreements between predecessors, and doctrines such as judicial estoppel, while assessing whether usage rights constitute an easement imposing maintenance duties under property law.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the Stern Estate's effort to recover a 19th-century painting that Dr. Max Stern was forced to consign and sell at auction in Nazi Germany in 1937 under threat of persecution as a Jewish art dealer. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on claims of replevin and conversion against the current possessor of the painting. The court granted the motion, holding that the Stern Estate is the rightful owner as a matter of law because the undisputed facts establish a forced sale at below-market value with no proceeds received by Dr. Stern, and the defendant raised no genuine issue of material fact or valid defense.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Stierhoff, defendant Neil Stierhoff was convicted by a jury on four counts of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 for the years 1999 through 2002 based on allegations that he failed to file returns or pay taxes on substantial income while using aliases, post office boxes, and cash transactions to conceal his activities. The district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(B) as well as his post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, and a mistrial. The court held that the indictment was sufficient because it tracked the statutory language, adequately set forth the elements of willfulness, tax deficiency, and affirmative acts of evasion, and was not duplicitous, while the trial evidence, including bank deposit analyses and customer testimony, supported the convictions.

criminal lawtaxes

The case involved Christopher Havlik, a student at Johnson & Wales University (JWU), who was temporarily suspended and later dismissed following a student conduct hearing that found him responsible for assaulting another student during an off-campus altercation on September 17, 2004. Havlik sued JWU, alleging issues with the university's disciplinary process, the content of a campus Crime Alert notice identifying him by name, and compliance with federal reporting requirements under the Clery Act for incidents on or near campus property. The court granted JWU's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It reasoned that the altercation occurred on public property adjacent to campus facilities controlled by JWU, that the university followed its internal procedures for investigation and hearing, and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence creating triable issues on his claims.

criminal lawprocedure