Source: http://www.hardcastleshober.com/notable-cases.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:22:20+00:00

Document:
Scott v. Encore Images, Inc., 80 Mass. App. Ct. 661 (2011). Appeals Court affirmation of summary judgment in favor of our employer client dismissing handicap discrimination claim and associational discrimination claim brought by former employees. Although discrimination claims typically involve disputed material facts and therefore are difficult to have dismissed before trial, we were able to obtain summary judgment in our favor by demonstrating through medical records that a former employee claiming handicap discrimination was unable to perform the essential functions of his job with or without an accommodation and by making a strong legal argument that his co-employee spouse's claim of associational standing to bring her own G.L. c. 151B discrimination claim would not be recognized by Massachusetts appellate courts notwithstanding the past recognition of such claims by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
Epstein v. Board of Appeals of Boston, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 752 (2010). Successful appeal of a ruling that our client lacked standing to challenge variances granted by the Boston zoning board of appeals. Those variances would have allowed a developer to increase the height of a building adjacent to our client's property from two to five stories, something that, while consistent with the character of the neighborhood, would significantly impact the views from and sunlight received by our client's condominium building. We were brought into the litigation late in the Superior Court case when the condominium association was faced with a summary judgment motion challenging its standing. Recognizing that dismissal of the variance challenge was inevitable because only the individual condominium owners, and not the association, would be harmed by the new building, we moved to intervene on behalf of the owner of five condominium units. While allowing our motion to intervene, the Superior Court judge concluded that the existing record, which was not as developed as we would have liked and included an unrebutted expert shadow study submitted by the developer, did not indicate that there would be any harm to the condominium units and therefore dismissed the case for lack of standing. We appealed the standing determination and were able to convince the Appeals Court that the shadow study had no evidentiary value and that there was ample evidence in the record, including of economic harm to the rental value of the condo units, to reverse the lower court's determination that our client had no standing to challenge the variances. As a result, the variances were annulled and the project did not go forward.
St. Fleur v. WPI Cable Systems, 450 Mass. 345 (2008). We represented an employer that had been sued by a terminated employee who alleged discrimination and harassment based on her race, gender, and national origin. The former employee first asserted a claim at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, which we defended and obtained a determination of lack of probable cause. The employee then brought a lawsuit in the Superior Court and we moved to dismiss based on an agreement to arbitrate signed by the former employee during her employment. The employee argued that she had signed the agreement under duress. The lower court judge refused to dismiss the case, concluding that the allegation of duress was enough to avoid dismissal, and rejected our argument that an evidentiary mini-trial was required to decide whether the arbitration agreement was enforceable before a decision could be rendered on our motion to dismiss. We filed an interlocutory appeal of the judge's ruling and the case was taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which addressed a number of issues relating to the arbitrability of employment disputes and the procedures for resolving disputes regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with our argument and we won a remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. A full hearing evidentiary hearing then was held at which we were able to demonstrate that the employee did not sign the agreement under duress and obtain dismissal of the case.
Bishay v. Brighton Avenue Associates, LLC, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 1120 (2007). Appeals Court affirmation of a jury verdict in favor of our client in the amount of $1.2 million in a commercial eviction case. The case involved the commercial eviction of an automobile dealership following which the former tenant went out of business and was placed in receivership. We were hired by the court-appointed receiver to litigate claims against the landlord and were able to obtain a jury verdict in our favor following a 12 day jury trial. In a case involving complex and difficult legal issues raised through a summary judgment motion, motions in limine, a directed verdict motion, post-trial motions, and a post-trial appeal, we were able to overcome the landlord's defenses that the eviction was proper and in accordance with a duly issued judgment for possession and execution and that any claim of an oral agreement was barred by the statute of frauds. Following the appeal, we were able to collect the full amount of the judgment and interest totaling more than $2.2 million.
Locator Services Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer and Receiver General, 443 Mass. 837 (2005). We represented a company in the business of locating and recovering unclaimed assets for its clients in a dispute with the Massachusetts State Treasurer over the calculation of interest on previously unclaimed eminent domain awards held for many years by the Treasurer. Our client had recovered over 100 previously unclaimed eminent domain awards that had been held by the Treasurer pursuant to its statutory authority in an Eminent Domain Trust Fund. The Treasurer paid to our client the principal amount of the claims plus "simple" (i.e., not compounded) interest on the awards, claiming that only fixed simple interest was required because the abandoned property statute required only that amount of interest to be paid rather than interest actually earned. Because the eminent domain awards had been unclaimed for many years, in some cases over 30 years, the difference between simple and compounded interest was significant. We brought a mandamus action in Superior Court seeking to recover all compounded interest actually earned on the awards while held by the Treasurer. The Treasurer appealed an adverse decision at the trial court level and the Supreme Judicial Court rejected the Treasurer's abandoned property argument and held that the Treasurer had to pay all interest actually earned. As a result, we were able to recover in excess of $1.7 million.
Pfizer, Inc. v. Uprichard, 422 F.3d 124 (3rd Cir. 2005). We represented a high-level executive on her claim for contractual severance benefits following a change in control of her employer and a change in her job duties after the company was acquired. The claim was arbitrated successfully before a panel of arbitrators in New Jersey and an award issued in our favor in the amount of $244,636.25 plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. We then prevailed in a court action filed by the employer in the New Jersey federal court seeking to vacate the arbitration award. When the employer then refused to pay the resulting Judgment unless the former employee signed a settlement agreement agreeing to keep the payment confidential and agreeing not to make negative statements about the employer, the litigation continued and ultimately ended up at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in our favor ruling that Pfizer had no right to require the execution of any settlement documents as a condition of payment of the Judgment.
Johnson Turf and Golf Management, Inc. v. City of Beverly, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 386 (2004). This matter involved a public bidding dispute over the award of a contract to operate a municipal golf course. Our client bid for and won the contract and an unsuccessful bidder for the contract, the plaintiff Johnson Golf, sued the City alleging errors in the public bidding process. Our client intervened in the lawsuit and by agreement of the parties the contract was re-bid, with our client again winning the contract. At this point an agreement was reached pursuant to which our client would keep the contract and the plaintiff would limit its claims in the litigation to recovery of money damages against the City. Because the plaintiff was no longer challenging the award of the contract to our client, our client withdrew as a party to the litigation. Later in the litigation, however, the plaintiff and the City agreed to a judgment resolving the case that would award the contract to the plaintiff. Because that resolution was at odds with the prior agreement, we moved post-judgment to re-intervene in the case to contest the judgment agreed upon by the plaintiff and City. A judge denied the request to re-intervene and we appealed. The Appeals Court accepted our argument that we had the right to challenge the judgment as inconsistent with the prior agreement between the parties and that it was error for the trial court to deny our motion to re-intervene.
Munshani v. Signal Lake Venture Fund II, LP, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 714 (2004). Appeals Court affirmation of the dismissal of plaintiff's claims as a result of a fraud committed in litigation by fabricating evidence. This case involved a claim by the plaintiff that he had been promised an equity interest in one of the portfolio companies of our client, a venture capital fund, in exchange for services rendered. An expert computer analysis resulted in a report, accepted by the trial court judge, concluding that the plaintiff had fabricated an e-mail purportedly from the president of the portfolio company to support his claim. The trial judge agreed that the appropriate sanction for the fraud perpetrated on the court was dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed, arguing that the sanction was excessive. In addition to succeeding on the appeal, we were able to obtain an award of appellate attorneys' fees.
©2010 Hardcastle & Shober. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.