Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP (CHA), agreed to design a new athletic field for the plaintiff, Trustees of Boston University (university). The contract included an express indemnification provision, which required CHA to indemnify the university for any expenses resulting from CHA's negligent design. A defect in CHA's design caused the university to incur expenses to fix the field. The university demanded indemnification from CHA, which CHA refused. More than six years after the field opened, the university sued CHA for breach of the indemnification provision.The Superior Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of CHA, relying on the tort statute of repose, which bars tort actions for damages arising from design defects in real property improvements six years after the improvement's opening. The judge concluded that the university's claim was barred by this statute. The university appealed the decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the tort statute of repose does not apply to the university's contract claim for indemnification. The court emphasized that the claim was based on an express contractual provision, not a tort duty imposed by law. The court distinguished between claims for breach of an implied warranty, which are barred by the statute of repose, and claims for breach of an express warranty or indemnification provision, which are not. The court reversed the Superior Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Trustees of Boston University v. Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Lorraine Bellmar, as the personal representative of her deceased husband Harry Bellmar's estate, filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against Dr. Robert Moore and his medical practice. Harry Bellmar had been Dr. Moore's patient for approximately ten years, suffering from morbid obesity, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and high cholesterol. In December 2006, an abnormal EKG was performed, but Dr. Moore did not order any follow-up cardiac testing over the next ten years. Harry Bellmar died in June 2016 from cardiac arrhythmia.The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the seven-year statute of repose under G. L. c. 260, § 4, because the claim was based on the 2006 EKG, which occurred more than seven years before the filing of the lawsuit in December 2017. The Appeals Court affirmed the decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the statute of repose does not shield later negligent acts if the medical malpractice claim is not predicated on acts or omissions that took place more than seven years before the filing of the claim. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Dr. Moore's treatment of the decedent within the seven-year period was negligent, independent of the 2006 EKG. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. View "Bellmar v. Moore" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the lease of a commercial property that has lasted nearly eight years. The plaintiff brought claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of G. L. c. 93A. The plaintiff prevailed at trial and was awarded a monetary judgment of over $20 million. The defendants paid the full amount of the judgment but notified the plaintiff that they intended to exercise their appellate rights.The Superior Court initially handled the case, and the plaintiff prevailed. The defendants appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment. The defendants then sought further appellate review, which the Supreme Judicial Court granted, limited to issues related to postjudgment interest.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that the exercise of appellate rights does not constitute a condition on the payment of a judgment. Therefore, the judgment was fully satisfied when it was paid in full, and the accrual of postjudgment interest halted upon payment. The court concluded that postjudgment interest is meant to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of the use of money when damages are not paid on time, not to punish or discourage appeals. The court reversed the portion of the lower court's order that allowed for the accrual of postjudgment interest after the defendants' payment in full. View "H1 Lincoln, Inc. v. South Washington Street, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, the register of deeds for Norfolk County, filed a lawsuit against the county commissioners for Norfolk County, seeking declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief regarding funding and personnel matters within the registry of deeds. The dispute centered on hiring a new chief information officer and the funding for that position. While this litigation was ongoing, the plaintiff requested the county director to transfer funds within the registry's budget to cover legal fees for the personnel litigation. The county director denied these requests, prompting the plaintiff to file a second lawsuit for declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief.In the Superior Court, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment regarding the budget transfers, and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that under G. L. c. 35, § 32, the plaintiff had the authority to transfer funds within a main group of the budget based on his opinion of public necessity and convenience. The defendants appealed this decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the statutory language of G. L. c. 35, § 32, clearly grants the authorized official the discretion to transfer funds within a main group based on their opinion of public necessity and convenience. The court found that the plaintiff's opinion was sufficient justification for the transfers and that the defendants' interference was unlawful. The court ordered that any outstanding amounts that should have been transferred be specifically authorized by the defendants and that the defendants refrain from hindering lawful transfers within the Contractual Services main group in the future. View "Register of Deeds for Norfolk County v. County Director for Norfolk County" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth sought to civilly commit a prisoner, previously convicted of a sexual offense, as a "sexually dangerous person" (SDP) under Massachusetts law. The process required expert testimony to establish probable cause and qualified examiners to determine if the case should proceed to trial. The plaintiff, George Mackie, was initially adjudicated as an SDP based on expert reports and testimony, but this decision was later vacated on appeal due to prejudicial error.Mackie then filed separate civil actions against Dr. Katrin Rouse-Weir, a probable cause expert, and Dr. Robert Joss, a qualified examiner, alleging they submitted false reports and testimony. Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaints, claiming immunity. Superior Court judges granted the motions, concluding that the defendants were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Mackie appealed these decisions.The Appeals Court reversed the dismissals, ruling that the experts were entitled only to qualified immunity, not absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court held that qualified examiners like Joss are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity due to their essential and independent role in the judicial process. The court also concluded that probable cause experts like Rouse-Weir are protected by the litigation privilege, which shields them from liability for their statements made during judicial proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court judgments dismissing Mackie's complaints against both experts. View "Mackie v. Rouse-Weir" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Land Court regarding a property in Duxbury, claiming ownership following a foreclosure sale. The defendants, who had executed a mortgage in favor of the plaintiff's predecessor, refused to vacate the property. The Land Court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring them the lawful owner. The defendants appealed this decision.Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a summary process complaint in the Housing Court to gain possession of the property and requested use and occupancy payments from the defendants during the litigation. The Housing Court judge granted this request but stayed the proceedings pending the appeal of the Land Court judgment. The defendants sought interlocutory relief from a single justice of the Appeals Court, who vacated the Housing Court's order, stating that the Housing Court judge had not determined ownership.The plaintiff renewed their motion in the Housing Court, which was again granted, with the judge explicitly relying on the Land Court's judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The defendants again sought relief from the single justice, who vacated the order, arguing that the Housing Court judge's reliance on the appealed Land Court judgment was improper. The plaintiff was granted leave to appeal to a full panel of the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case on its own motion.The Supreme Judicial Court held that a judge hearing a summary process action for possession may rely on a final judgment of the Land Court regarding ownership, even if an appeal is pending. The court confirmed that the Land Court's judgment had preclusive effect, allowing the Housing Court judge to order interim use and occupancy payments. The order of the single justice was reversed, and the defendants' petition for relief was denied. View "TJR Services LLC v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

A clerk-magistrate decided to allow public access to show cause hearings for individuals accused of being clients of a prostitution ring but denied media requests for the underlying complaint applications before the hearings. The accused individuals, referred to as John Does, intervened to oppose the public access decision and sought to keep the hearings private. The media outlets filed a petition in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County to challenge the clerk-magistrate's decision to withhold the complaint applications.The single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court remanded the matter to the clerk-magistrate for written findings on specific questions related to the public interest and privacy concerns. After reviewing the clerk-magistrate's responses, the single justice denied the petition, concluding that the clerk-magistrate did not commit an error of law or abuse her discretion in allowing public access to the hearings and denying access to the complaint applications.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the single justice's decision, holding that the clerk-magistrate acted within her discretion. The court found that the public interest in transparency and accountability outweighed the privacy interests of the accused, especially given the significant public attention and the potential for favoritism if the hearings were held privately. The court also agreed that denying access to the complaint applications was appropriate to prevent the dissemination of potentially erroneous or extraneous information before the accused had an opportunity to respond at the hearings.The court further directed the Trial Court to provide notice to the accused when a request for public access to a show cause hearing is made and to offer the accused an opportunity to respond before deciding on the request. View "Trustees of Boston University v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department" on Justia Law

Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino were engaged to be married, with Johnson giving Settino a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and two wedding bands. Johnson also paid for various expenses, including part of Settino's dental implant surgery. However, Johnson ended the engagement after discovering messages on Settino's phone that led him to believe she was unfaithful, although the trial judge found no evidence of an affair. Settino kept the engagement ring and wedding bands, and Johnson did not pay for the second part of Settino's dental procedure.Johnson sued to recover the engagement ring and wedding bands, and Settino counterclaimed for the cost of the dental procedure. The Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Settino, allowing her to keep the engagement ring and one wedding band, and awarded her damages for the dental procedure, including prejudgment interest from the date of Johnson's complaint. The judge found Johnson at fault for ending the engagement based on his mistaken belief of infidelity.The Appeals Court reversed the decision, ruling that Johnson was not at fault and should recover the engagement ring and wedding band. The court also found that prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date of Settino's counterclaim, not Johnson's complaint. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the concept of fault should not determine the return of engagement rings. The court adopted a no-fault approach, requiring the return of the engagement ring and wedding bands to the donor if the marriage does not occur, regardless of fault. The court also affirmed the need to recalculate prejudgment interest from the date of Settino's counterclaim. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest. View "Johnson v. Settino" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Kathleen Vita, alleged that New England Baptist Hospital (NEBH) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc. (BIDMC) violated the Massachusetts wiretap act by collecting and transmitting her browsing activities on their websites to third parties for advertising purposes without her consent. Vita accessed information about doctors and medical conditions on the hospitals' websites and claimed these interactions were "wire communications" protected by the wiretap act. She did not allege that private patient records or messages to healthcare providers were intercepted.The Superior Court denied the hospitals' motions to dismiss Vita's complaints, leading to the hospitals' appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the term "communication" in the wiretap act is ambiguous as applied to web browsing activities. The court found that the legislative history of the wiretap act focused on the secret interception of person-to-person conversations and messaging, particularly private ones, and did not clearly extend to interactions with websites. Given this ambiguity, the court applied the rule of lenity, which requires that any ambiguity in a criminal statute be resolved in favor of the defendant. Consequently, the court concluded that the wiretap act does not unambiguously prohibit the interception of web browsing activities and reversed the Superior Court's denial of the hospitals' motions to dismiss. View "Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital" on Justia Law

The case involves Susan Hartnett, a public employee who worked for the Commonwealth from 1978 to 1990 and then rejoined public service in 2002, working for the city of Boston. Upon her return, her salary more than doubled compared to her 1990 salary. Hartnett continued working until 2006 and deferred her retirement until 2016. Initially, her pension was calculated without applying the anti-spiking provision of the public employee pension statute, but after an audit, the Boston Retirement System (BRS) applied the provision, reducing her pension.Hartnett challenged the application of the anti-spiking provision. The Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) and the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) affirmed BRS's decision. Hartnett then sought judicial review in the Superior Court, which ruled in her favor, concluding that the anti-spiking provision did not apply because the years 1990 and 2002 were not "two consecutive years" under the statute. The agencies appealed, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the phrase "two consecutive years" in the anti-spiking provision refers to two back-to-back years without interruption. The court found that the plain meaning of "consecutive" means following one after another without interruption, and this interpretation is consistent with the statutory scheme. The court rejected the agencies' argument that "two consecutive years" should mean two creditable years of service without another intervening year of service. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in favor of Hartnett, ruling that the years 1990 and 2002 are not "two consecutive years" under the anti-spiking provision. View "Hartnett v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board" on Justia Law