The defendants, Brad Brooks and Lloyd Jennings, own the property next door to Pineau, and opposed the dispensary, including Pineau's efforts to obtain necessary zoning relief. The plaintiffs, Caroline Pineau and Haverhill Stem LLC (collectively Pineau or plaintiffs), sought to operate a marijuana dispensary at a property that Pineau leased in downtown Haverhill. This case presents issues regarding the types of claims that can survive challenge under the so-called "anti-SLAPP statute," G. Nathanson (Scott Adam Schlager also present) for the defendants.ĮNGLANDER, J. Deakin, J., and motions to reconsider and to stay proceedings were considered by him.Īlvin S. ĬIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 5, 2019.Ī special motion to dismiss was heard by David A. In a civil action, the judge properly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of the litigation privilege, where much of the defendants' allegedly coercive and threatening conduct (i.e., employing threats of litigation to obtain monetary relief and cause the individual plaintiff's financial ruin in circumstances in which monetary relief could not be obtained as a result of the contemplated Land Court litigation) could not properly be considered as in connection with litigation, and where the statements that the defendants claimed were privileged fairly could be viewed as part of the conduct of extortion, and thus the privilege did not attach. 231, § 59H, where the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs' claims were based solely on the defendants' petitioning activity, in that the thrust of the complaint was that the defendants employed threats in order to extort money from the individual plaintiff in exchange for the defendants dropping their opposition to the plaintiffs' proposed marijuana dispensary. 12, § 11I, the judge properly denied the defendants' special motion to dismiss under the "anti-SLAPP" statute, G. 93A and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G. In a civil action alleging claims for, inter alia, violations of G. ![]() ![]() Consumer Protection Act, Unfair act or practice. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss, Review of interlocutory action, Interlocutory appeal. Constitutional Law, Right to petition government, Privileges and immunities. 626 JanuCourt Below: Superior Court, Essex County Present: Green, C.J., Kinder, & Englander, JJ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |