Patti B. Saris

This case involved homeowners Marilene O. Rosa and Adamado de Souza Oliveira challenging the validity of a mortgage assignment and subsequent foreclosure on their Massachusetts property. The plaintiffs alleged that MERS lacked authority to assign the mortgage to HSBC entities after the original lender dissolved, sought declarations that the assignments were invalid and that the assignees were not bona fide purchasers, demanded production of the original note, and claimed slander of title. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that MERS, as nominee mortgagee, had authority to assign the mortgage regardless of note possession, the dissolution of the original lender did not invalidate the assignment, and the plaintiffs failed to state viable claims for the relief sought.

propertyprocedure

In this copyright dispute over kitchen design software, Real View sought a declaratory judgment that its ProKitchen program did not infringe 20-20's copyrighted 20-20 Design software, after Real View had illegally downloaded a copy of version 6.1 and used it during development; 20-20 counterclaimed for infringement and damages. The jury found no infringement by the final ProKitchen product but awarded 20-20 over $1.37 million based solely on the illegal download, prompting Real View's motion for a new trial or remittitur. The court remitted the award to $4,200 plus 12% prejudgment interest, the amount of the license fee 20-20 charged at the time, on the ground that the evidence did not support additional actual damages or infringer profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) because any connection between the download and Real View's profits was too attenuated once the jury determined the competing product itself did not infringe.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned claims by Kaiser health plans against Pfizer and its subsidiary for off-label marketing of the drug Neurontin (gabapentin) for conditions such as bipolar disorder, which allegedly violated California's Unfair Competition Law. Following a multi-week trial, the district court previously found defendants liable and awarded plaintiffs over $95 million in restitution. In this post-judgment ruling on defendants' Rule 52(b) motion to amend findings, the court allowed the motion in part and denied it in part, addressing the parent company's standing to recover damages incurred by its regional subsidiaries, upholding the validity of an expert's causation analysis that attributed prescriptions to fraudulent promotion, and correcting an exhibit reference regarding marketing materials sent to neurologists.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

This case involved claims by health insurer Kaiser against Pfizer alleging that the company fraudulently marketed the drug Neurontin for off-label uses such as neuropathic pain, bipolar disorder, and migraine by suppressing negative clinical trial data and promoting positive information. After a trial, a jury found Pfizer liable under RICO and awarded damages that were trebled, and the court separately awarded restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law. Defendants moved for a new trial or to alter the judgment, seeking to introduce a 2011 Cochrane review on gabapentin and arguing other grounds such as a pass-on defense. The court denied the motion, holding that the new review did not constitute newly discovered evidence likely to change the result, that fraud-by-omission was established, and that the pass-on theory was not viable under applicable precedent.

business & regulatorycriminal lawhealthcare

In United States v. Turner, petitioner Bruce Turner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after his conviction for unlawful possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal as well as a challenge to the use of a prior state conviction as an ACCA predicate. The court denied the petition in full. It held that additional ineffective assistance theories raised in a later memorandum did not relate back to the timely original filing and were therefore barred by the one-year statute of limitations, while the challenge to the prior conviction failed because the petitioner’s affidavit alleging an uninformed waiver of counsel was not credible and lacked corroboration. The court noted that any successful invalidation of the predicate conviction in state court could later support resentencing but found no constitutional defect on the present record.

criminal lawprocedureguns

Boston Gas sought indemnification from Century Indemnity under liability insurance policies for costs to remediate environmental contamination at a former manufactured gas plant site known as Commercial Point, after a jury had awarded it approximately $1.7 million under an 'all sums' allocation theory. Following intervening rulings from the First Circuit and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court establishing a pro rata allocation method for long-tail environmental claims, the district court addressed post-verdict motions from both parties. The court vacated the verdict and granted a new trial limited to determining the timing and allocation of property damage as well as the application of the owned-property exclusion, because the jury instructions had been based on the superseded all-sums approach and the verdict on the exclusion was against the weight of the evidence; it also denied Boston Gas's motion for entry of judgment, ruled that Massachusetts prejudgment interest would apply once damages are finally determined, and issued a declaratory judgment on past damages.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims by 20-20 Technologies against Real View, LLC and its principals for copyright infringement of its 20-20 Design CAD software (versions 6.1, 6.4, and 8.1), trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, and common-law interference with contract, arising from Real View's development of competing ProKitchen software for kitchen and bath design after an illegal download of 20-20's program. A jury found Real View not liable on the copyright, trade dress, and interference claims but awarded $1,370,590 in damages for the admitted illegal download. The court, deciding the remaining claim under Massachusetts Chapter 93A for unfair trade practices based on the trial evidence, ruled in favor of Real View. The core reasoning was that 20-20 could not use state law to protect rights equivalent to copyright or punish copying that the Copyright Act leaves unregulated when the federal copyright claims had failed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Pingaro, co-defendants Christine Scola and Joseph Pingaro faced indictment on 67 counts involving a Klein tax conspiracy, tax evasion, false tax returns, and illegal structuring of cash transactions related to their business J & J Metals. Scola moved to sever her trial from Pingaro's, submitting his affidavit stating he would provide exculpatory testimony about her limited role and lack of knowledge if tried separately and after his own trial. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial under the Drougas test, and the District Court adopted the recommendation, holding that the conditional offer failed to meet the requirement of showing Pingaro would in fact testify if cases were severed. The court also noted that Scola did not demonstrate prejudice from joinder or that secondary factors like judicial economy favored severance, as other witnesses could address similar facts.

criminal lawproceduretaxes

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Metris U.S.A., Inc. against Faro Technologies, Inc., concerning U.S. Patents No. 6,611,617 and 7,313,264 related to three-dimensional scanning technology using laser scanners on articulated arms. The court conducted a bench trial and concluded that the '617 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by the patent applicants. The core reasoning centered on findings that the applicants failed to disclose material information regarding inventorship and prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office, with intent to deceive.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleging that Schering-Plough Corporation and its subsidiaries fraudulently inflated the Wholesale Acquisition Cost of generic Albuterol, causing overpayments by the state Medicaid program ranging from 100% to 700%. After a trial, the jury found the defendants liable for fraud and violations of the Massachusetts False Claims Act and Massachusetts Medicaid False Claims Act, awarding damages of $4,563,328. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on one prong of the MFCA and a breach of implied covenant claim, held that the MFCA could not apply retroactively to conduct before its July 2000 enactment, and otherwise entered judgment for the Commonwealth on the jury's verdict.

criminal lawhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved homeowners Russell and Jennifer Morris who sued BAC Home Loans Servicing for allegedly violating Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, the state Consumer Protection Act, by failing to properly evaluate their application for a loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and by continuing foreclosure proceedings. BAC moved to dismiss, arguing that HAMP does not create a private right of action and thus cannot support a Chapter 93A claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that HAMP violations can form the basis for a viable 93A claim when the conduct is independently unfair or deceptive under state law, but found the existing complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim. The plaintiffs orally described additional facts suggesting BAC had been nonresponsive and mishandled prior modification efforts, leading the court to order them to file an amended complaint within 30 days or face dismissal.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned appeals from bankruptcy court rulings in the Chapter 7 proceedings of Michael and JoAnn Furlong and their company Drew's Plumbing, specifically whether claims against former owner Andrew Donarumo had been abandoned by the trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 554, whether an assignment of those claims from the company to the Furlongs violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, and whether shares in the company remained property of the personal bankruptcy estate. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's holdings that the claims were duly abandoned through the trustee's notice in the personal case and the no-asset closing of the corporate case, that the assignment did not violate the stay because the stay does not reach corporate assets even when the debtor owns all stock, and that the shares were never formally abandoned and thus stayed with the trustee. The reasoning centered on the broad scope of property included in a bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 and the formal requirements for abandonment, with the automatic stay analysis relying on precedent that it does not extend to corporate property.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case arose from plaintiff Terry Williams' arrest and conviction for assault and battery, which he claimed he did not commit; after his conviction was reversed and charges dismissed, he sued the City of Boston, two police officers, and supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations, plus state-law claims for malicious prosecution against the officers and negligence against the City. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation on the defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing the City's motion as to the § 1983 claim (which Williams withdrew) but denying it as to the negligence claim, and allowing the officers' motion in part to dismiss the improper investigation and false arrest claims while denying it as to the remaining claims. The court reasoned that Williams failed to state viable claims for improper investigation and false arrest under the applicable standards, but that the malicious prosecution and negligence allegations were sufficiently pleaded to proceed, with absolute immunity barring any claims based solely on trial testimony.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involves insurance companies Fire Insurance Exchange and Farmers Insurance Exchange seeking a declaratory judgment that their policies do not require indemnification of Alexander Pring-Wilson for a $260,000 civil judgment against him for negligence in a wrongful death action stemming from a 2003 altercation that resulted in Michael Colono's death. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the insurers' motion for summary judgment. The court determined that under Colorado law, material questions of fact and interpretation remain as to whether the incident qualified as an "occurrence" or "accident" under the policies or fell within the exclusions for intentional acts, emphasizing that insurance coverage analysis is separate from tort liability findings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves two proposed class actions by public payors, including San Francisco Health Plan and Douglas County, Kansas, alleging that McKesson Corporation participated in a racketeering scheme with First DataBank to fraudulently inflate the average wholesale prices (AWP) of brand-name drugs, leading to higher reimbursements paid by governmental entities from 2001 onward, in violation of RICO and state laws. The court considered motions to certify broad national and California classes of public payors that reimbursed pharmacies based on the inflated AWPs. It denied certification of the full proposed classes, which included states, primarily because they failed the superiority and predominance requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) due to individualized issues of damages mitigation by different payors and significant manageability problems with such a large and varied group. Instead, the court certified a narrower class of non-federal and non-state governmental entities for RICO liability from August 1, 2001, to June 2, 2005, and for damages through December 31, 2003, under Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).

procedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The United States brought this civil action under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act to commit Joel Wetmore as a sexually dangerous person. After an evidentiary hearing featuring testimony from two court-appointed and government psychologists plus other witnesses, the court found that Wetmore meets the statutory criteria. The court concluded that Wetmore suffers from pedophilia and paraphilia not otherwise specified (hebephilia), based on his lengthy history of molesting boys aged eleven to fifteen, and determined that these disorders would cause him serious difficulty refraining from further child molestation if released. The ruling rested on Wetmore's self-reported and documented offense history, expert diagnoses, and evidence of continued sexual interest in minors while incarcerated.

criminal law

This case arose from the repossession of the plaintiff's car after she defaulted on a loan financed by the Toyota defendants; she alleged that the defendants blocked her electronic account, preventing her from curing the default in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 255B, § 20A(e) and the terms of the retail installment contract. The plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and related statutory violations, seeking class action status. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants prevented any cure of default raised factual questions inappropriate for resolution on a 12(b)(6) motion, that the statutory right-to-cure claims were adequately pled, and that the contract and good-faith claims were tied to those allegations.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involves a pro se inmate at a Massachusetts correctional facility who belongs to a Native American spiritual group and sought access to ceremonial tobacco for religious prayers under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) as well as Massachusetts constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions. After the plaintiff clarified that he was not seeking unrestricted access at all times, the court vacated its prior dismissal and partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing it on broad claims for unlimited tobacco use and on Eighth Amendment, equal protection, and certain state law claims, while denying it without prejudice on the narrower request for access during a once-monthly smudging ceremony under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. The core reasoning was that an unrestricted request for tobacco throughout the facility was properly resolved for the defendants on summary judgment, but the limited ceremonial request during scheduled times raised triable issues that required further proceedings, with qualified immunity granted on damages claims.

religious libertycivil rights

In Pye v. Longy School of Music, the NLRB Regional Director petitioned for preliminary injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, alleging that Longy School of Music violated its duty to bargain with a newly certified faculty union before restructuring its faculty, which included terminating several instructors in March 2010 as part of a broader strategic and financial plan. The court found that the Board was likely to succeed in showing that Longy had a duty to engage in effects bargaining over the impacts of the restructuring decision, even if the underlying decision itself was not a mandatory subject, and that the union suffered irreparable harm to its bargaining position from the unilateral changes. The court therefore granted the petition in part by ordering Longy to bargain over the effects of the restructuring and to reinstate with backpay the eight terminated bargaining-unit members, while denying relief as to the former community programs chairs and other requested remedies.

labor & employment

This case concerned the downsizing of Lucent's Merrimack Valley Works manufacturing facility, where the company offered voluntary retirement and buyout packages to employees under a collective bargaining agreement program called LCTOP as part of multiple layoffs in 2000-2001. Twenty-seven plaintiffs who accepted these packages sued Lucent under ERISA, claiming the company made misrepresentations and material omissions about the benefits available. After a related class action was not certified, the court conducted a preliminary bench trial on four selected plaintiffs. The court found in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs' ERISA claims regarding the voluntary packages did not succeed based on the evidence presented about the information disclosed and the nature of the benefits offered.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory