Case law

Aldrich v. Ruano

952 F. Supp. 2d 295 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 24, 2013

In forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte and without notice under section 1915 if the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual allegations that are clearly baseless. … Finally, under the public function test, a private party can be characterized as a state actor "if the plaintiff establishes that, in engaging in the challenged conduct, the private party performed a public function that

McClinton v. Suffolk County Jail

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 1, 2021

immunity. … Because McClinton has failed to establish a constitutional violation by the Defendants, however, this Court need not address their qualified immunity argument. Ruiz-Casillas v.

McMorris v. TJX Companies, Inc.

493 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 26, 2007

See, e.g., Evans, 449 F.3d at 1166 (concluding that evidence of interviewing numerous potential class members residing in the forum state presented by plaintiffs was inadequate to qualify for a CAFA exclusion); Nichols v. … But that action is clearly, in my mind, encompassed by some of these other actions. Now, they want larger class action cases, but it’s going to include Massachusetts folks in the class.

Foster v. Mydas Associates, Inc.

779 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 1991

It is undisputed that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case. The Plaintiff Darcy Foster was a member of a racial minority who sought to, and was qualified to, purchase the property in question. … While the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, they made little or no effort to meet their burden of establishing that the defendants’ proffered reasons for their actions were a pretext.

Back Beach Neighbors Committee v. Town of Rockport

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 21, 2021

The MTCA abrogates the Commonwealth’s immunity in many tort actions but preserves such immunity for certain claims enumerated in M.G.L. c. 258, § 10. … immune to such private nuisance claims.

Doe v. City of Northampton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 1, 2024

Sovereign Immunity As to Defendant’s next threshold objection regarding sovereign immunity, the court concludes that, unless an exception applies, Defendant would be immune … However, “[a]cts which involve ‘the carrying out of previously established policies or plans,’… , do not warrant immunity [under the discretionary function exception].” Penate v. Scampini, 600 F. Supp. 3d 129, 140 (D.

United States v. Wilkes

130 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 20, 2001

In Apprendi the Supreme Court did not clearly reconcile the three approaches outlined above. … The present indictment, then, clearly is deficient.

Broderick v. Roache

767 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 18, 1991

After a careful review of this record, I conclude that Broderick has met his threshold burden of establishing protected conduct. … The frequency of articles on the BPD, and Broderick’s regular contribution to them which is clearly established by the record, is persuasive. Gomez v.

Powell v. Holmes

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 1, 2018

Mass. 2013) (“One in the possession of a chattel does not become a converter by making a qualified refusal immediately to surrender the chattel when the circumstances are such that the demand for immediate surrender is … In other words, Section 10(d) does not provide immunity to individual defendants—it only provides immunity to the Commonwealth. See Nelson v.

Reich v. John Alden Life Insurance

940 F. Supp. 418 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 8, 1996

John Alden argues that, because its marketing representatives clearly engage in “promoting sales” and “representing the company”, they perform administrative work. … John Alden argues that its marketing representatives clearly exercise discretion and independent judgment in significant matters.

Callagy v. Town of Aquinnah

880 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2012

The selectmen of the town do not have a uniform view as to who qualifies as a seasonal resident. (Docket Entry # 24, ¶ 22; *250 Docket Entry # 32, ¶ 22). … law and (2) this conduct deprived appellants of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Thiersaint v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 2022

Accordingly, Thiersaint also has failed to establish a triable issue of fact that SCSD violated the ADA or Rehabilitation Act by his cell assignment while at SCHC. … Accordingly, Thiersaint has failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether SCSD violated the ADA or Rehabilitation Act regarding his MHU placement.

Feldstein v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

547 F. Supp. 97 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 31, 1982

The Monitor maintains a policy of hiring only Christian Scientists unless there are none sufficiently qualified for the particular position. Feldstein is not a Christian Scientist. … Mandamus Plaintiff must establish two elements to warrant mandamus relief: (1) the duties to be compelled must be entirely *101 ministerial involving neither judgment nor discretion, Iowa City-Montezuma Railroad Shippers

Manson v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

283 F.R.D. 30 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 30, 2012

This is too late in the game to qualify as a “common” question for class certification purposes. 26 Typicality “The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge. … and specifically identifies the mortgage at issue as among those assigned, may suffice to establish the trustee as the mortgage holder.”). .

White v. City of Boston

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2022

immunity. … Beyond that, they incorporate their third reason, addressed in the next paragraph of the text above, and argue Janey could not have known she was violating any clearly established right. Doc. No. 44 at 7.

Evans v. Thompson

465 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 2006

It is not even sufficient that the state court “failed to apply” clearly established Supreme Court law, Early v. … This decision was not an abuse of discretion and was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 2.

Chukwu v. Board of Directors Varig Airline

880 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 21, 1995

Hodges, 44 F.3d at 339 . *897 The citation to section 1511(a), which, as seen above, qualifies this discretion to instances in which “such transportation would or might be inimical to safety of flight ” (emphasis added) seems … As explained in Hodges , § 1305(a)(1) assured the economic deregulation of the airlines by rendering them immune from rate and service regulation by the states....

Ricci v. Okin

781 F. Supp. 826 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 22, 1992

This court has noted on a number of occasions that the Consent Decrees, and subsequent orders of the court, clearly establish procedures for the allocation of staff resources, as well as processes for making community placement's … These plans are developed under the supervision of a qualified mental retardation professional.

Antonio Ex Rel. Mother v. Boston Public Schools

314 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 27, 2004

Since the Buckhannon decision “establishes] that enforceable judgments on the merits and court-ordered consent decrees create the ‘material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties’ necessary to permit an award … In the present case, Plaintiff clearly is not invoking the catalyst theory as a basis for recovering attorneys’ fees.

Martin v. STERICYCLE, INC.

389 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 4, 2005

Until *136 shortly before resigning, she had, in fact, taken all such days and, therefore, when the employer began to deprive her of them, the terms of her employment had clearly changed. Id. … (“[b]ecause the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated pretext, the court will assume, for purposes of summary judgment, that [defendant’s] denial of [plaintiffs] request for vacation time qualifies as an adverse