This case involves a Methuen police sergeant who sued the city and various officers, alleging retaliation—including suspension, internal investigations, harassment, and defamation—after he reported suspected corruption involving the police chief and testified before a federal grand jury. The plaintiff claimed violations of his federal and state constitutional rights, primarily through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against individual defendants and the municipality. The court allowed the defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims, finding the allegations insufficient under pleading standards to establish liability or a municipal policy or custom, and dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice due to the early stage of the proceedings and lack of supplemental jurisdiction. The decision rested on precedents like Twombly, Iqbal, and Monell requiring plausible factual support rather than conclusory statements.
The case concerned an Egyptian corporation that licensed a music television channel to a New Jersey company under agreements providing for payments and U.S. broadcasting rights; the licensee allegedly failed to pay fees, leading the licensor to sue both the licensee and Dish Network entities (which broadcast the channel) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and related claims in federal court in Massachusetts. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction over them and improper venue, while the plaintiff sought leave for jurisdictional discovery. The court allowed the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, denied the discovery motion without prejudice, and addressed related issues of forum non conveniens and transfer, relying on analysis of the defendants' contacts with Massachusetts, the parties' forum-selection clause, and standards for personal jurisdiction and venue under federal law.
This case concerns disputes over reinsurance obligations stemming from insurance policies issued in the early 1980s by affiliated Commercial Union entities, now OneBeacon and Aviva, for coverage of Harrisons U.S. operations. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment and motions to strike affidavits and evidence. It allowed the defendant's motion to strike, partially allowed the plaintiffs' motion to strike, denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, and granted the defendant's summary judgment motion. The core reasoning was that the sole reinsurance contract between the parties, the Facultative Certificate, covered only the 1980 policy and did not extend to the 1981 or 1982 policies, which lacked the required reinsurance endorsement, had different terms, and included exclusions removing the relevant insureds from coverage.
This case was a commercial dispute between two competing at-home carpet and flooring companies, Empire Today and National Floors Direct (NFD), involving claims of tortious interference with contracts and business relations, Lanham Act violations for trademark infringement and false advertising, alter ego liability, defamation, and abuse of process, along with related claims under Massachusetts Chapter 93A. After a thirteen-day jury trial excluding the 93A claims, the jury rejected all of Empire's claims and found for NFD only on its abuse of process counterclaim, awarding $500,000 in damages. Empire then moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), while both parties filed cross-motions seeking judgments on their respective Chapter 93A claims and related requests for attorneys' fees under state and federal law. The court denied all post-trial motions, leaving the jury verdict intact and declining to award additional relief or fees on the 93A claims or Lanham Act issues.
The case concerned the enforceability of a 2006 mortgage on plaintiff's property after plaintiff attempted to rescind 2007 refinancing mortgages under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), which had been intended to pay off the earlier loan. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on Chase's counterclaim seeking to enforce the 2006 mortgage. The court allowed Chase's motion in part and denied plaintiff's cross-motion, holding that the 2006 mortgage remained valid and enforceable. The reasoning relied on TILA and Regulation Z, which limit rescission in refinancings to only the new funds advanced and do not affect prior obligations, so plaintiff's tender of the 2006 mortgage was ineffective and the discharge was erroneous.
This case arose under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as a challenge to the Social Security Administration's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits to a Portuguese immigrant with a fourth-grade education who claimed inability to work due to a left shoulder injury and back pain from a 2004 industrial accident. The ALJ found at step five of the five-step evaluation process that the claimant retained the residual functional capacity for light work and that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform, leading to denial of benefits. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion to reverse and granted the Commissioner's motion to affirm, holding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the plaintiff had not shown any legal error or ignored evidence. The court noted that an ALJ need not specifically discuss every piece of evidence, including vocational assessments from non-medical sources.