Denise Jefferson Casper — judge journal: record, career & affiliations — IJR

Denise Jefferson Casper — judge journal: record, career & affiliations — IJR

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Hightower v. City of Boston
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011-09-29 · cited 3×
Stacey Hightower challenged Massachusetts' firearm licensing statute under Mass. Gen. L. c. 140, § 131, claiming that its requirements for Class A and Class B licenses to carry firearms, including suitability determinations by licensing authorities and restrictions on concealed carry, violated her Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights both facially and as applied after her unrestricted Class A license was revoked. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Hightower's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the City of Boston, its Police Commissioner, and the intervening Commonwealth. The court upheld the statutory scheme, reasoning that it is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller, that firearm rights outside the home are subject to reasonable public safety regulations that survive intermediate scrutiny, and that the licensing process and revocation did not violate equal protection principles.
gunscivil rights
Aspect Software, Inc. v. Barnett
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011-09-14 · cited 21×
Aspect Software sued its former Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Gary Barnett, alleging breach of his employment contract after he accepted a position with rival Avaya. The court granted Aspect's motion for a preliminary injunction, barring Barnett from participating in any business where he would likely use Aspect's trade secrets during the 12-month protection period. The ruling applied Massachusetts law per the contract's choice-of-law provision and found that Barnett had access to confidential information on product development, customer relations, and strategic plans, creating a risk of irreparable harm. The decision rested on the non-compete clause's language prohibiting use or disclosure of trade secrets and the balance of equities favoring enforcement to protect Aspect's interests.
business & regulatorylabor & employment
MASSACHUSETTS DELIVERY ASS'N v. Coakley
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011-04-08 · cited 2×
The Massachusetts Delivery Association, representing same-day delivery companies, sued the state Attorney General for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the B prong of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor statute—which presumes workers are employees unless their service falls outside the employer's usual business course—could not be enforced against its members because it was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. Member companies faced multiple state and federal lawsuits and investigations for classifying courier drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The court granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss, holding that it must abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger doctrine. The core reasoning was that the federal preemption claim mirrored issues already being litigated in pending state court actions, requiring federal courts to defer to those proceedings to avoid interference.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
Optos, Inc. v. TOPCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011-03-07 · cited 43×
Optos, a Massachusetts-based company, sued its former California employee Schafer and his new employer Topcon, a New Jersey company, alleging that Schafer breached a confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement by retaining and using a confidential customer list to help Topcon solicit Optos customers, along with related claims of trade secret theft and unfair practices. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer venue, while Optos sought a preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion to dismiss or transfer, finding specific jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants based on the contract's Massachusetts choice-of-law and forum clause, the defendants' awareness of potential litigation there, and the effects of the alleged conduct on Optos in Massachusetts. It granted the preliminary injunction in part, concluding Optos showed a likelihood of success on the breach of contract claims and irreparable harm from customer solicitation, while denying broader relief on other grounds.
business & regulatoryprocedurelabor & employment