Case law

Miranda Pizarro v. McDonald

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2024

Under that statute, the court must dismiss an action to the extent that, among other things, it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary damages from a party that is immune. … P. 10(c), exhibits are not required and the use of exhibits does not excuse Miranda-Pizarro of his responsibility to clearly and succinctly set forth the relevant allegations in the body of the second amended complaint

Hernandez v. Ashe

745 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 13, 2010

As a result, *21 the court does not reach Defendants’ alternative qualified immunity argument. A. … Moreover, the video clearly and unequivocally shows that Devine attempted to move the cart before using his foot to force Plaintiff to release it, only applied force when Plaintiff failed to let go, used only the force necessary

Neverson v. Bissonnette

242 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 4, 2003

The Appeals Court’s decision, therefore, was not contrary to clearly established federal law. … Despite Neverson’s various protestations, the Appeals Court’s decision was also not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

United States v. Maling

746 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 1990

The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own fourth amendment rights have been violated. … These facts clearly establish a substantial basis for the judge’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant to search the trunk in this case.

United States v. Iacaboni

592 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 8, 2009

District of Massachusetts, Judge George O’Toole concluded that “neither (a) a factual error as to the amount of restitution nor (b) a legal error in the manner of determining restitution is generally so ‘fundamental’ ... as to qualify … Though the criteria to be *222 satisfied in order to invoke this common law tool are not well established, it seems they would be at least as stringent as those identified for a writ of error coram nobis.

Jones v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 16, 2018

Immunity DOC Defendants have not sustained their burden that they are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. … Absent any analysis, DOC Defendants have not met their burden establish qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Vizcaino v. United States

981 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2013

Given this framework, the Court must find that the provisions in *109 § 851 were clearly intended to repeal habeas relief under § 2255. The Court starts with a reading of the plain language of the relevant provisions. … Even though the statute could fairly be considered ambiguous on this point 1 as the Supreme Court established in St.

Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)

144 F. Supp. 3d 152 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 2015

First, IGRA confers upon qualifying tribes the “exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law.” 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (5). … On August 27, 2014, the Tribe moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the grounds of sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Securities Exchange Commission v. Durgarian

477 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 6, 2007

not fall within the category of manipulative devices envisioned by the Supreme Court: The defect in the SEC’s allegations is that market timing arrangements are not the kind of sham transactions which have been held to qualify … Therefore, if proven to be false, Durgari-an’s certifications are clearly material.

Vaiano v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 12, 2025

Section 1681g(a) obligates consumer reporting agencies to, upon request, “clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer . . . … Experian contends that these claims must be dismissed because they fall within the “qualified immunity” from certain state-law claims afforded by FCRA in 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e). Thornton v.

Noonan v. Winston Co.

902 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 1995

These Boit methods clearly anticipate that some discovery will be conducted prior to the court’s determination of the jurisdictional question. … Where a plaintiff is clearly unable to establish jurisdiction as a matter of state law, it is the better practice to end the inquiry without addressing constitutional concerns. See Ticketmaster —New York, Inc. v.

REDER ENTERPRISES v. Loomis, Fargo & Co. Corp.

490 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 1, 2007

Put simply, this case, in the court’s opinion, is clearly a “dispute arising out of’ the MCA and, hence, covered by that contract’s broadly-worded forum-selection clause. … It is well-established that “[a] final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land,

Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.

447 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 17, 2006

Defendants are not judicially estopped from arguing that the Contract as a whole has a three-year term with membership under that Contract renewable on a monthly basis because that position is not “clearly inconsistent” with … The burden of establishing liability under Chapter 93A is demanding, however.

Articulate Systems, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.

66 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 23, 1999

: “Well, the art is clearly software programming that uses operating systems to create application software. … Rudnicky’s Declaration does not clearly and convincingly establish a prima facie case for the invalidity, on grounds of indefiniteness, of the ’303 patent.

Wilson v. McClure

135 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2001

Indeed, other courts within this district have awarded lower fees to similarly qualified individuals. … The First Circuit has clearly indicated that “such enhancements will be rare.” Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 942 .

Fruzzetti v. Easton Police Officers

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 28, 2024

Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304, (1990) (The Supreme Court “has drawn upon principles of sovereign immunity to construe the Amendment to ‘establish that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts … To establish a § 1983 claim based on a municipal custom, the custom “must be attributable to the municipality[,]” Whitfield v.

Britton v. Maloney

981 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 1997

. § 1983 , a plaintiff must show that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color or law; and, (2) the conduct deprived a person of clearly established rights, privileges or immunities secured … Here, the defendant-officers acted under color of law; the dispute centers around the second requirement — what clearly established federal rights were implicated. The plaintiff makes two Fourth Amendment claims.

Isham v. Perini Corp.

665 F. Supp. 2d 28 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 7, 2009

The Supreme Court has instructed that, to qualify as strong, “an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable — it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent … The remaining “insider” sales of non-defendants are also unavailing because, again, insider sales cannot establish scienter on their own.

Szulik v. State Street Bank & Trust Co.

935 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2013

and would mislead the plaintiffs about the true value of assets contained in their portfolio. 7 Even if State Street had *265 no specific obligation to value the plaintiffs’ assets, the Joint Account Agreement “does not clearly … The' complaint establishes that the parties’ relationship was based on the Custody Account Agreements.

Fleet National Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance

843 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 1, 1994

The Bank depended upon its occupancy of the headquarters building to establish a successful banking business, and was thus vitally interested in the continuation of the loan financing. … The terms of the Agreement clearly provide that the pledged collateral secured the pledgor’s (to wit, the Bank’s) obligations to Fleet. The Agreement defined those obligations as obligations pursuant to the subleases.