Preview
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
Docketed 11/8/2023 12.0
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT
Docket No. 2382CV00126
i
JOHN M. KEOUGH. rustee of
FISHER HILL REALTY TRUST
Plaintiff,
Vv.
BOYLSTOND3 LLC
PLAINTIFF’S QUE
SUPPLEMENTAL
T LAL NUEING Oly STATEMENT OF DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION
DIAN EUR AASSESSMENT
FOR ERIN OF DAMAGES
3 OT LANESAND
ANY DEFAULT
EAU AN JUDGMENT
Plaintiff John M. Keough, Trustee of Fisher Hill Realty Trust (“Plaintiff”), files
this supplemental
premenial statement of damages in support of the previously-filed Statement of
Damages in Support of Application for Assessment of Damages and Default Judgment
(the “Statement of Damages”) against defendant BoylstonD3 LLC (“Defendant”). At
the October 18, 2023 hearing on assessment of damages, this Court (Leighton, J.)
permitted Plaintiff to supplement the Statement of Damages in the following two area
(1) to include an analysis of the request for legal fees under the “lodestar” method, and
(2) provide further authority for the request for recovery of real estate taxes paid. This
supplement filing addresses those two issues. In addition, Plaintiff includes a further
section herein explaining why the legal fees/cost portion of his damages should be
considered compensatory damages and thus eligible for a multiple-damage award under
Chapter 93A
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
Under
the Lode: ar Method
The Supreme Judicial Court has adopted the lodestar method as the basic
approach to evaluating an award of attorney’s fees and costs in litigation. E.g., Fontaine
y, Ebtec Corp., 415 Mass. 309 (1993). The lodestar approach can be summarized as
follows: “A fair market rate for time reasonably spent preparing and litigating a case is
the basic measure of a reasonable attorney’s fee under State law as well as Federal Law.”
Id. at 326. The two components of lodestar ~ fair market rate and time reasonably spent
- were further explained in Stowe v. Bologna, 417 Mass. 199 (1994), as follows:
The first component of the basic measure amount is the amount of time
reasonably expended on the case. The judge should begin his inquiry with the
amount of time documented by the plaintiff's attorney. Stratos, supra, 387 Mass.
at 322-323, 439 N.E.2d 778. Then the judge decides whether this amount of time
was reasonably expended. /d. and cases cited. The judge should not only consider
the plaintiff's financial interests at stake but also the plaintiffs other interests
sought to be protected by the statute in question and the public interest in having
persons with valid claims under the statute represented by competent legal
counsel. See Jd. at 323, 439 N.E.2d 778. The second component of the basic
measure amount is the amount of a reasonable hourly rate. This amount should be
the average rate *204 in the community for similar work by attorneys with the
same years’ experience. Stratos, supra at 323-324, 439 N.E.2d 778, and cases
cited.
Davison
Law Fees and Costs
In the 320 Action, Plaintiff was represented by Attorney Juliet Davison of
Davison Law as counsel of record in the litigation. Attorney Davison is an experienced
and highly-regarded business litigator who has been practicing law for over 30 years, and
presently practices at her boutique civil litigation firm. See Exhibit 10 (Attorney
Davison’s online biography). Prior to starting her own firm, Attorney Davison was an
associate at the international law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and then a
partner at Boston-based Todd & Weld. Attorney Davison has received numerous awards
2
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
and accolades, including being named a Top 100 SuperLawyer and Top 50 Woman
SuperLawyer in Massachusetts by the eponymous publication, as well as a “Go-To
Lawyer for Business Litigation” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. See ibit 10
(further list of professional awards and recognition) and | it bit11 (MLW profile). She
has been active in civic and professional organizations, including a former President of
the Federal Bar Association (Massachusetts Chapter). As previously detailed (Keough
Affidavit, § 5), the billable rate charged to Plaintiff in this matter - $350/hour— is actually
well below her regular billable rate, which exceeds $600 per hour.
In litigating the 320 Action and the consolidated case, Plaintiff incurred total
litigation-related legal fees of $78,732.50, which represent approximately 225 hours of
jegal time spent, and $1,326.97 of costs. See Exhibit
SHO 4 (Davison Law Client Ledger
itemizing all charges and payments). Over the course of approximately three years of
litigation in the Land Court, she engaged in a wide range of activities routinely
encountered in civil litigation, e.g., drafting and filing pleadings, regular correspondence
and communication with her client and opposing counsel, and attending numerous court
hearings, and, ultimately, drafting, filing, and arguing a successful motion for summary
judgment. it 12 (Mass. Trial Court online docket for 320 Action). After prevailing
at summary judgment, Attorney Davison also represented Plaintiff in a session of court-
sanctioned (but unsuccessful) mediation. See Exhibit 4 (detailing approximately 12
hours billed to mediation from February 9 - March 8, 2023). While the 320 Action
ultimately was resolved in Plaintiff's favor on all claims and counterclaims prior to trial,
the process of getting to summary judgment required extensive pre-trial work. Indeed,
the 320 Decision itself evinces the contentious and convoluted procedural history of the
3
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
case. See [xt Ss at pp. 3 - 11 (case procedural history). Judge Rubin dryly observed
that “Much like the Driveway at issue, the procedural history in this matter is long and
winding.” Exhib t2, at p. 3. Moreover, because undersigned counsel provided Attorney
Davison with research and paralegal assistance, at no charge (Keough Affidavit { 5), the
resulting time charges attributable to Attorney Davison were not just reasonable but
likely understate the intrinsic “time reasonably spent” component of the lodestar analysis.
Consequently, this Court should find that Attorney Davison’s 225 hours of
litigation-related legal services at the rate of $350/hour, and $1,326.97 of costs, constitute
reasonable time spent at fair market rate for the purposes of the lodestar analysis and
award Plaintiff damages in the amount of $80,059.47.
Rainen
Law Office Fees
and Costs
Attorney Edward Rainen of Rainer Law Office provided non-litigation legal
services in support of Plaintiff in the 320 Action. Attorney Rainen is an experienced and
highly-regarded real estate title attorney who has been practicing law for almost 50 years
(Boston College Law School, 1976). He presently practices with his wife and daughter in
a family firm. Attorney Rainer has been appointed a Land Court Examiner and Land
Court Commissioner for Partition and is a policy-writing agent for eight (8) title insurers.
See | it_13 (Attorney Rainen’s online biography). Attorney Rainen has also written
and lectured extensively in the area of real estate titles and related issues. See EXDION
Exhibit 1)
13
(list of 30 such lectures, panels and publications). His hourly rate of $350/hour is a
reasonable rate for an experienced lawyer in this specialized area.
Attorney Rainen’s role in the 320 Action was to research the title and organize the
relevant exhibits to his affidavit, which served as the foundation for Plaintiff's successful
4
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
motion for summary judgment. He charged 25 hours of time for the “Research, Review,
Consultation and Preparation” of this affidavit and exhibits. See hibit 5 (Rainen Office
invoice). A copy of the affidavit prepared by Attorney Rainen in the 320 Action
(excluding its voluminous exhibits) is attached as | bit_14, and further evidences the
legal time required to produce this important part of Plaintiffs successful case.
Consequently, this Court should find that Attorney Rainen’s 25 hours of legal
services at the rate of $350/hour rate constitute reasonable time spent at a fair market rate
for the purposes of the lodestar analysis and award Plaintiff further damages in the
amount of $8,750.
Plaintiff's Legal Fees in the 320 Action are Compensatory Damages Subjectto
Aw Iti A
As stated in the Statement of Damages (page 8, note 6), the legal fees paid to
Davison Law and the Rainen Law Office are not legal fees in the strict sense, as
expressed by the American Rule, because they were not incurred by Plaintiff in this
action. Instead, they are deemed compensatory damages incurred Plaintiff in the prior
320 Action.! Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 456 Mass. 627 (2010); see also
American Velodur Metal, Inc. v. Schinabeck, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 460 (1985) (legal fees incurred in
defending abuse of process lawsuit are considered compensatory damages, not attorney’s fees).
Because these legal fees are compensatory, unlike legal fees incurred in prosecuting this
action, the legal fees are subject to multiple damages under Chapter 93A. The case of Siegal v.
Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 64 Mass, App. Ct. 698 (2005) confirms this rule, In Siegal, the trial court
awarded the prevailing plaintiff $125,000 as reasonable attorney’s fees but rejected the contention
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
that such fees could be “subject to doubling or trebling” because the judge was “of the opinion
that the Jaw did not permit him to do so.” Jd. at 700-03. The Appeals Court found this ruling to
be an error drawing a distinction between legal fees incurred in “vindicating that person’s rights
under the statute [Chapter 93A]” and those incurred in prior litigation that could be “considered
actual damages” resulting from the defendant’s unfair and deceptive conduct, the latter “which
the judge may multiply if he sees fit to do so.” Jd. at 703-04. That is precisely the state of affairs
in this case. Plaintiff does not seek recovery of legal fees incurred in this action (see n. 1, supra);
rather, Plaintiff seeks to recover legal fees incurred in prior litigation with Defendant that was
frivolous and pursued for an improper purpose. Consequently, these prior fees are
“compensatory damages” and may properly be doubled or trebled under Chapter 93A.
Real Estate Taxes
Plaintiffs Statement of Damages also sought recovery of DLL
$71,844.57
OSS, as reimbursement
for real estate taxes paid on 621 Boylston up to the date of the entry of judgment in his favor in
the 320 Action. See Exhibits
6 — 8. The gravamen of Plaintiff's claims is that Defendant’s
conduct and bad-faith litigation had the practical effect of temporarily depriving Plaintiff of the
use and enjoyment of 621 Boylston. During this period of deprivation of his property, Plaintiff
was nonetheless required to pay the costs of such ownership, including the real estate taxes.”
These direct, out-of-pocket costs to Plaintiff were both foreseeable and quantifiable and therefore
should be included in Plaintiff's damages under the general rule of damages. See Malone v.
Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 212 (1913) (injured plaintiff in action for “malicious abuse of process”
enn eee — a
1 For purpose of this assessment of damages, Plaintiff has not sought to recover his legal fees
incurred in this action for the reason that a default judgment is expected and, accordingly,
Plaintiff's legal fees are less substantial.
2 Tronically, Plaintiff was spared certain other costs of ownership because Defendant’s conduct
prevented Plaintiff from hiring landscapers and contractors to perform work on 621 Boylston.
See Complaint § 28(ii).
6
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
“should be allowed to recover all such damages as are the natural and probable consequences of
the action complained of”). Moreover, the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in the case of Lopes
v. City of Peabody, 430 Mass. 305 (1999), provides further specific support for the recovery of
real estate taxes as damages. In Lopes, the plaintiff owned real estate found to be affected by the
defendant city’s “temporary regulatory taking,” entitling him to recover damages from the
defendant. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to recover for “the value of his loss of use of the
property in question during the time that the temporary taking [had been] in effect,” but denied
the plaintiffs request for “reimbursement of real estate taxes” during the same period. Jd. at
308-09. On appeal, the SJC reversed this ruling, finding that “principles of basic fairness”
compelled a ruling that plaintiff was entitled to recover real estate taxes paid during the period of
time he was deprived of his use of the property. The case was remanded to the superior court to
award the plaintiff the amount of real estate taxes paid, plus interest on the taxes. Jd. at 310-13.
Plaintiff's temporary loss of the use and enjoyment of 621 Boylston is comparable to the
plaintiff's loss due to the “temporary regulatory taking” in Lopes, and Plaintiff's allowable
damages should therefore include real estate taxes paid during the period in question. This Court
should follow the reasoning in Lopes and award Plaintiff the amount of $71,844.57,
OS plus interest,
to compensate Plaintiff for the temporary loss of the use and enjoyment of the 621 Boylston.
Conel
Xone} lon.
On
Based upon the above arguments and authorities, Plaintiff requests that this Court award
Plaintiff money damages against Defendant in the sum of $410.9 04, as set forth in the
Statement of Damages; and an award of double or treble such damages under Chapter 93A.
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN M. KEOUGH, Trustee of
FISHER HILL REALTY TRUST
By his/its attorney,
/s/ John M. Keough
John M. Keough, Esq. (BBO #546729)
337 Freeport Street
Boston MA 02122
(617) 504-4477
November 8, 2023 jkeough@nepcoinc.com
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 8" day of November, 2023, I served a true copy of this document and the
attached exhibits, by first-class mail, to:
BoylstonD3 LLC
c/o Shona Pendse
617 Boylston Street
Brookline MA 02445
/s/ MarleneIm —_
Marlene Im
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
EXHIBIT 10
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
10/27/23, 2:22 PM Juliet Davison, Founder
wal DAVISONLAW
Juliet Davison
Juliet Davison has been practicing law for over 30 years and founded Davison Law in 2008 after
many years as a partner at the Boston trial firm of Todd & Weld LLP and several years with the
international firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Admitted to practice in
Massachusetts and New York, Juliet has a broad litigation background and deep experience
representing individuals and companies in the trial and appellate courts, in mediation and
arbitration. She specializes in business litigation, employment litigation, and trust and estate
litigation. Juliet understands that clients seek seasoned advice, effective strategy, efficient
implementation, and, most importantly, results.
Practice Areas:
* Business Litigation
* Employment Litigation
* Trust and Estate Litigation
Awards and Recognition:
* Juliet has been named as a Top 100 SuperLawyer® and a Top 50 Woman SuperLawyer@ in
Massachusetts in each of the past five years (2018-2022).
Juliet is recognized by Best Lawyers in America® in each of the following practice areas:
Commercial Litigation, Labor and Employment Litigation, and Litigation Estates and Trusts.
Juliet was recognized by Boston Magazine as a Top Lawyer in Commercial Litigation in the
Region in 2021 and 2022.
Juliet was named a 2018 Top Woman of Law by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Juliet is rated AV® Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating in legal ability and
ethical standards.
Education:
» J.D,, University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall), 1990
« BA, Brown University (1985)
* Juliet is fluent in French and received the French baccalaureat from the Lycee Francais
D’Antananarivo with “mention bien” before attending Brown
Bar and Court Admissions:
» New York (1991)
* Massachusetts (1993)
* U.S, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
* US. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
hittps://www.davisonlawilc.com/attorneys/juliet-davison/ 12
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
10/27/23, 2:22 PM Jufiet Davison, Founder
. U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
» U.S, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado
Civic, Professional and Charitable Activity:
. Former President Federal Bar Association - Massachusetts Chapter
° Former Member Boston Bar Association Council
* Former Co-Chair, Small Firm/Solo Section of the Boston Bar Association
Fellow, Boston Bar Foundation
Member, Boston Inn of Courts
Volunteer/Rosie’s Place
® Volunteer/Hospitality Homes
. Trial Advisor for the Harvard Trial Advocacy Workshops 2008-2012
Memberships:
* Boston Bar Association
» American Bar Association
* Federal Bar Association - MA Chapter
DAVISON LAW, LLC | There's No Substitute for Experience
© Copyright 2023
617 345 9990 | juliet@davisonlawile.com
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 301087, Boston, MA 02130
Street Address: One Marina Park Drive, Boston, MA 02210
hitps:/www.davisontawilc.com/attorneys/juliet-davison/ 22
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
EXHIBIT 11
10
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
sinister se
is 2 es a
.
Fou
Davis
Boston attorney”
backgroundani yearsof
le,therp and appel-
significant
part of her
vingthe
covenants,
‘tmust an
lon and sexu
lence
cluding share-
1d corporations,
Leave Act di for breach of con.
advise yers and tract, misrepre fiduciary
id deceptive trade
and frequently represents of Chapter93.
ition.
ona Rule 12(b){6)
iness Litigat
dhere, Davisor thepl d he was the
nm that were
in dispute s wife, whom Da-
that Da-
is client es and
f fidi tation ie hush: ds 1. MLW
at bo) fafts Hedi Founda
5 Pla
atvatd Biel Ad 2012)
la 83
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket. Number 2382CV00126
in nse
rite
readers,
_ Welcome to Massachusetts G Ab ers, a feature “buted in 2020 to showcase leaders in the
egal community by practi area,
For this] we've chos to foo on Business Lu tigation iwyers. The eros featured pee were
ir colleagues and ‘chosenbys panel from Lar
Me Te
ate
lwyers
ig More outstandingM: husetts attorneys in a variety of}
2023
po A Be
etts
ohan. Neil... tne seeeeee wane
tee: nnt
3 Seth B. Orkand eee
MarkW. Penereeeneetearstonsenenay
S. +8 ee) “ Pirozzolo w...:...
08: one: weB4 D
ErikW. Weibu
eoneee
sence eone
teen BS ChristopheWeld
r Jr.
a B6 Jeremy feltman ones seghecess
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
EXHIBIT 12
11
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
111623, Case Detai ssach it N
19 MISC 000320 BoyistonD3 LLC, et al. v. Richardson, Jonathon |
|,Le
et al. RUBIN oes a vn |
si vir rnin sine
Case Type:
Miscellaneous
Case Status:
Closed
File Date
06/27/2019
DCM Track:
Initiating Action:
MRC - Determine Validity of Encumbrances, G.L. Chapter 240, § 11 - 14
Status Date:
06/27/2019
Case Judge
Rubin, Hon. DianeR
Next Event
619 Boylston Street
Brookline
on aes
imei “i es gins
Ail Information Party Event ‘Docket Financial Receipt Disposition
eer
Party Information
se ois acini is
BoylstonD3 LLC
- Plaintiff
|Party Attorney tia
More Party Information
Pendse, Shona
- Plain’
{Party Attorney
[Attorney
[Pro Se
|Bar Code
{PROPER
|Address
jPhone Number
\,
More Party Information
Richardson, Jonathon
More Party Information
Richardson, Dorothy
https:/www.masscourts.org/eservices/?x=nx8rCzF 2uhOym*TV**VJqGy2T 5YliF HppnWeHbDp2sUKzfUYta5EcyU21A*XaLtrXllyDGLC7P01 0eDXEbR. 424
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
11/8/23, 8:28 AM Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court N2
}
‘(Party Attome
More Party Information
_ Merchia, Pankaj
es
More Party
More Party Informs
Information
: John M. Keough, Trustee of Fisher Hill Realty Trust u/d/t dated February 1, 2019
ss
More Party {nformation
i Richardson, Margaret E.
sr
Party Attorney
Attorney
Chapman, Esq., Tyler E
Bar Code
637852
Address
Todd and Weld LLP
One Federal St 27th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-2012
Phone Number
(617)720-2626
Attorney
Furman, Esq., Matthew S
Bar Code
|679751
Address
Todd and Weld LLP
One Federal St 27th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
{Phone Number
((617)720-2626 a ce om sea ce
More Pa Hy. {information
Brookline Boylston, LLC
Defendant reteset esters
Party Attorney
Attorney
‘Allen, Esq., Jeffrey P
Bar Code
015500
Address
Lawson and Weitzen LLP
88 Black Falcon Ave
Boston, MA 02210
Phone Number
(617)439-4990
Attorne’
Gentile, Esq., Donald
Bar Code
672657
Address
Lawson and Weitzen LLP
88 Black Falcon Ave
Suite 345
Boston, MA 02210
Phone Number
{(617)439-4990 o
https:/Awww.masscourts.org/eservices/?x=nx8rCzF
2uhOym*TV“*VJqGyzT 5 YliF Hppn W8HbDp2sUKzfU Yta5EcyU21A*XaLtrxllyDGLC7P010eDXEbR... 2121
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
41/8/23, 8:28 AM Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court N2
More.fe Pally
More PartyLor
information
Events ints
con Si
Date
Date Session
Session Location Type Event Judge Result
08/16/2019 Rubin Case Management Rubin, Hon: Rescheduled
10:00 AM Conference Diane R.
09/20/2019 Rubin Courtroom 1104 - Case Management Rubin, Hon. Held
10:30AM Eleventh Floor Conference Diane R.
12/23/2019 Rubin Status Conference Rubin, Hon. Rescheduled
14:00 AM Diane R:
01/06/2020 Rubin Status Conference Rubin, Hon Rescheduled
02:30 PM Diane R.
01/28/2020 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Status Conference Rubin, Hon: Held
11:00 AM Fourth Floor Diane R.
04/14/2020 Rubin Motion Rubin, Hon Rescheduled-Covid-19
02:30 PM Diane R. emergency
15/05/2020 Rubin Summary Judgment Rubin, Hon Rescheduled-Covid-19
10:00 AM Hearing Diane R. emergency
06/15/2020 Rubin Courtroom 404 - Status Conference Rubin, Hon Held via video
10:00 AM Fourth Floor Diane R
08/03/2020 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Status Conference Rubin, Hon Held via video
10:30 AM Fourth Floor Diane R:
08/10/2020 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Motion Rubin, Hon Held via video
02:30 PM Fourth Floor Diane R.
03/09/2022 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Motion Rubin, Hon: Held via video
10:00 AM Fourth Floor Diane R:
06/07/2022 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Motion Rubin, Hon Heid via video
02:30 PM Fourth Floor Diane R.
Docket Information
Docket Docket Text Amount Image
Date Qwed Avail.
06/27/2019 Complaint filed.
@
Image
06/27/2019 Case assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04
06/27/2019 Land Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 405314 Date: 06/27/2019 $240.00
06/27/2019 Land Court surcharge Receipt: 405314 Date: 06/27/2019 $15.00
06/27/2019 Land Court summons Receipt: 405314 Date: 06/27/2019 $10.00
06/27/2019 Uniform Counsel! Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
16/27/2019 Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server and Order of Appointment
filed and ALLOWED.
Image
Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H.
07/03/2019 The case has been assigned to the A Track. Notice sent
07/03/2019 Event Scheduled
Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R
Event: Case Management Conference Image
https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/?x=nx8rCzF
2unOym*TV""VJqGyzT 5Y liF HppnW8HbDp2sUKZ{UYta5EcyU21A*XaLtrXllyDGLC7P01 0eDXEbR, 3/21
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00126
11/8/23, 8:28 AM Case Detai
_Massachusens Tal Gout ~ say
ket Docket Text Amount Image
Owed Avail.
Date: 08/16/2019 Time: 10:00 AM
(Notice sent to Atty. Mare Osborne)
07/24/2019 Defendants' Emergency Motion for Extension to Respond to Compiaint, filed
Image
07/24/2019 Email from Atty, Osborne: "We do oppose the motion, as we have previously
granted them an extension to answer our rather short complaint.”
07/24/2019 The court is in receipt of "Defendants' Emergency Motion for Extension to
Respond to Complaint" and Atty. Osborne's emailed objection. While the court
takes note of his objection, the Motion is ALLOWED. Defendants’ have until image
August 5, 2019 to file an Answer to the Complaint."
Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R
07/26/2019 Event Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on:
08/16/2019 10:00AM
Has been: Rescheduled to September 20, 2019 at 10:30 am, at the request of
counsel and by agreement of the court.
07/26/2019 Event Scheduled
Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R
Event: Case Management Conference Image
Date: 09/20/2019 Time: 10:30 AM
2°.
(Notice sent to Attys. Osborne and Furman)
07/30/2019 Interdepartmental Consolidation Request, filed.
08/05/2019 Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim filed by Jonathon and
Dorothy Richardson.
Preview
Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 Docketed 11/8/2023 12.0 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT Docket No. 2382CV00126 i JOHN M. KEOUGH. rustee of FISHER HILL REALTY TRUST Plaintiff, Vv. BOYLSTOND3 LLC PLAINTIFF’S QUE SUPPLEMENTAL T LAL NUEING Oly STATEMENT OF DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION DIAN EUR AASSESSMENT FOR ERIN OF DAMAGES 3 OT LANESAND ANY DEFAULT EAU AN JUDGMENT Plaintiff John M. Keough, Trustee of Fisher Hill Realty Trust (“Plaintiff”), files this supplemental premenial statement of damages in support of the previously-filed Statement of Damages in Support of Application for Assessment of Damages and Default Judgment (the “Statement of Damages”) against defendant BoylstonD3 LLC (“Defendant”). At the October 18, 2023 hearing on assessment of damages, this Court (Leighton, J.) permitted Plaintiff to supplement the Statement of Damages in the following two area (1) to include an analysis of the request for legal fees under the “lodestar” method, and (2) provide further authority for the request for recovery of real estate taxes paid. This supplement filing addresses those two issues. In addition, Plaintiff includes a further section herein explaining why the legal fees/cost portion of his damages should be considered compensatory damages and thus eligible for a multiple-damage award under Chapter 93A Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 Under the Lode: ar Method The Supreme Judicial Court has adopted the lodestar method as the basic approach to evaluating an award of attorney’s fees and costs in litigation. E.g., Fontaine y, Ebtec Corp., 415 Mass. 309 (1993). The lodestar approach can be summarized as follows: “A fair market rate for time reasonably spent preparing and litigating a case is the basic measure of a reasonable attorney’s fee under State law as well as Federal Law.” Id. at 326. The two components of lodestar ~ fair market rate and time reasonably spent - were further explained in Stowe v. Bologna, 417 Mass. 199 (1994), as follows: The first component of the basic measure amount is the amount of time reasonably expended on the case. The judge should begin his inquiry with the amount of time documented by the plaintiff's attorney. Stratos, supra, 387 Mass. at 322-323, 439 N.E.2d 778. Then the judge decides whether this amount of time was reasonably expended. /d. and cases cited. The judge should not only consider the plaintiff's financial interests at stake but also the plaintiffs other interests sought to be protected by the statute in question and the public interest in having persons with valid claims under the statute represented by competent legal counsel. See Jd. at 323, 439 N.E.2d 778. The second component of the basic measure amount is the amount of a reasonable hourly rate. This amount should be the average rate *204 in the community for similar work by attorneys with the same years’ experience. Stratos, supra at 323-324, 439 N.E.2d 778, and cases cited. Davison Law Fees and Costs In the 320 Action, Plaintiff was represented by Attorney Juliet Davison of Davison Law as counsel of record in the litigation. Attorney Davison is an experienced and highly-regarded business litigator who has been practicing law for over 30 years, and presently practices at her boutique civil litigation firm. See Exhibit 10 (Attorney Davison’s online biography). Prior to starting her own firm, Attorney Davison was an associate at the international law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and then a partner at Boston-based Todd & Weld. Attorney Davison has received numerous awards 2 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 and accolades, including being named a Top 100 SuperLawyer and Top 50 Woman SuperLawyer in Massachusetts by the eponymous publication, as well as a “Go-To Lawyer for Business Litigation” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. See ibit 10 (further list of professional awards and recognition) and | it bit11 (MLW profile). She has been active in civic and professional organizations, including a former President of the Federal Bar Association (Massachusetts Chapter). As previously detailed (Keough Affidavit, § 5), the billable rate charged to Plaintiff in this matter - $350/hour— is actually well below her regular billable rate, which exceeds $600 per hour. In litigating the 320 Action and the consolidated case, Plaintiff incurred total litigation-related legal fees of $78,732.50, which represent approximately 225 hours of jegal time spent, and $1,326.97 of costs. See Exhibit SHO 4 (Davison Law Client Ledger itemizing all charges and payments). Over the course of approximately three years of litigation in the Land Court, she engaged in a wide range of activities routinely encountered in civil litigation, e.g., drafting and filing pleadings, regular correspondence and communication with her client and opposing counsel, and attending numerous court hearings, and, ultimately, drafting, filing, and arguing a successful motion for summary judgment. it 12 (Mass. Trial Court online docket for 320 Action). After prevailing at summary judgment, Attorney Davison also represented Plaintiff in a session of court- sanctioned (but unsuccessful) mediation. See Exhibit 4 (detailing approximately 12 hours billed to mediation from February 9 - March 8, 2023). While the 320 Action ultimately was resolved in Plaintiff's favor on all claims and counterclaims prior to trial, the process of getting to summary judgment required extensive pre-trial work. Indeed, the 320 Decision itself evinces the contentious and convoluted procedural history of the 3 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 case. See [xt Ss at pp. 3 - 11 (case procedural history). Judge Rubin dryly observed that “Much like the Driveway at issue, the procedural history in this matter is long and winding.” Exhib t2, at p. 3. Moreover, because undersigned counsel provided Attorney Davison with research and paralegal assistance, at no charge (Keough Affidavit { 5), the resulting time charges attributable to Attorney Davison were not just reasonable but likely understate the intrinsic “time reasonably spent” component of the lodestar analysis. Consequently, this Court should find that Attorney Davison’s 225 hours of litigation-related legal services at the rate of $350/hour, and $1,326.97 of costs, constitute reasonable time spent at fair market rate for the purposes of the lodestar analysis and award Plaintiff damages in the amount of $80,059.47. Rainen Law Office Fees and Costs Attorney Edward Rainen of Rainer Law Office provided non-litigation legal services in support of Plaintiff in the 320 Action. Attorney Rainen is an experienced and highly-regarded real estate title attorney who has been practicing law for almost 50 years (Boston College Law School, 1976). He presently practices with his wife and daughter in a family firm. Attorney Rainer has been appointed a Land Court Examiner and Land Court Commissioner for Partition and is a policy-writing agent for eight (8) title insurers. See | it_13 (Attorney Rainen’s online biography). Attorney Rainen has also written and lectured extensively in the area of real estate titles and related issues. See EXDION Exhibit 1) 13 (list of 30 such lectures, panels and publications). His hourly rate of $350/hour is a reasonable rate for an experienced lawyer in this specialized area. Attorney Rainen’s role in the 320 Action was to research the title and organize the relevant exhibits to his affidavit, which served as the foundation for Plaintiff's successful 4 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 motion for summary judgment. He charged 25 hours of time for the “Research, Review, Consultation and Preparation” of this affidavit and exhibits. See hibit 5 (Rainen Office invoice). A copy of the affidavit prepared by Attorney Rainen in the 320 Action (excluding its voluminous exhibits) is attached as | bit_14, and further evidences the legal time required to produce this important part of Plaintiffs successful case. Consequently, this Court should find that Attorney Rainen’s 25 hours of legal services at the rate of $350/hour rate constitute reasonable time spent at a fair market rate for the purposes of the lodestar analysis and award Plaintiff further damages in the amount of $8,750. Plaintiff's Legal Fees in the 320 Action are Compensatory Damages Subjectto Aw Iti A As stated in the Statement of Damages (page 8, note 6), the legal fees paid to Davison Law and the Rainen Law Office are not legal fees in the strict sense, as expressed by the American Rule, because they were not incurred by Plaintiff in this action. Instead, they are deemed compensatory damages incurred Plaintiff in the prior 320 Action.! Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 456 Mass. 627 (2010); see also American Velodur Metal, Inc. v. Schinabeck, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 460 (1985) (legal fees incurred in defending abuse of process lawsuit are considered compensatory damages, not attorney’s fees). Because these legal fees are compensatory, unlike legal fees incurred in prosecuting this action, the legal fees are subject to multiple damages under Chapter 93A. The case of Siegal v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 64 Mass, App. Ct. 698 (2005) confirms this rule, In Siegal, the trial court awarded the prevailing plaintiff $125,000 as reasonable attorney’s fees but rejected the contention Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 that such fees could be “subject to doubling or trebling” because the judge was “of the opinion that the Jaw did not permit him to do so.” Jd. at 700-03. The Appeals Court found this ruling to be an error drawing a distinction between legal fees incurred in “vindicating that person’s rights under the statute [Chapter 93A]” and those incurred in prior litigation that could be “considered actual damages” resulting from the defendant’s unfair and deceptive conduct, the latter “which the judge may multiply if he sees fit to do so.” Jd. at 703-04. That is precisely the state of affairs in this case. Plaintiff does not seek recovery of legal fees incurred in this action (see n. 1, supra); rather, Plaintiff seeks to recover legal fees incurred in prior litigation with Defendant that was frivolous and pursued for an improper purpose. Consequently, these prior fees are “compensatory damages” and may properly be doubled or trebled under Chapter 93A. Real Estate Taxes Plaintiffs Statement of Damages also sought recovery of DLL $71,844.57 OSS, as reimbursement for real estate taxes paid on 621 Boylston up to the date of the entry of judgment in his favor in the 320 Action. See Exhibits 6 — 8. The gravamen of Plaintiff's claims is that Defendant’s conduct and bad-faith litigation had the practical effect of temporarily depriving Plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of 621 Boylston. During this period of deprivation of his property, Plaintiff was nonetheless required to pay the costs of such ownership, including the real estate taxes.” These direct, out-of-pocket costs to Plaintiff were both foreseeable and quantifiable and therefore should be included in Plaintiff's damages under the general rule of damages. See Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 212 (1913) (injured plaintiff in action for “malicious abuse of process” enn eee — a 1 For purpose of this assessment of damages, Plaintiff has not sought to recover his legal fees incurred in this action for the reason that a default judgment is expected and, accordingly, Plaintiff's legal fees are less substantial. 2 Tronically, Plaintiff was spared certain other costs of ownership because Defendant’s conduct prevented Plaintiff from hiring landscapers and contractors to perform work on 621 Boylston. See Complaint § 28(ii). 6 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 “should be allowed to recover all such damages as are the natural and probable consequences of the action complained of”). Moreover, the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in the case of Lopes v. City of Peabody, 430 Mass. 305 (1999), provides further specific support for the recovery of real estate taxes as damages. In Lopes, the plaintiff owned real estate found to be affected by the defendant city’s “temporary regulatory taking,” entitling him to recover damages from the defendant. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to recover for “the value of his loss of use of the property in question during the time that the temporary taking [had been] in effect,” but denied the plaintiffs request for “reimbursement of real estate taxes” during the same period. Jd. at 308-09. On appeal, the SJC reversed this ruling, finding that “principles of basic fairness” compelled a ruling that plaintiff was entitled to recover real estate taxes paid during the period of time he was deprived of his use of the property. The case was remanded to the superior court to award the plaintiff the amount of real estate taxes paid, plus interest on the taxes. Jd. at 310-13. Plaintiff's temporary loss of the use and enjoyment of 621 Boylston is comparable to the plaintiff's loss due to the “temporary regulatory taking” in Lopes, and Plaintiff's allowable damages should therefore include real estate taxes paid during the period in question. This Court should follow the reasoning in Lopes and award Plaintiff the amount of $71,844.57, OS plus interest, to compensate Plaintiff for the temporary loss of the use and enjoyment of the 621 Boylston. Conel Xone} lon. On Based upon the above arguments and authorities, Plaintiff requests that this Court award Plaintiff money damages against Defendant in the sum of $410.9 04, as set forth in the Statement of Damages; and an award of double or treble such damages under Chapter 93A. Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 Respectfully submitted, JOHN M. KEOUGH, Trustee of FISHER HILL REALTY TRUST By his/its attorney, /s/ John M. Keough John M. Keough, Esq. (BBO #546729) 337 Freeport Street Boston MA 02122 (617) 504-4477 November 8, 2023 jkeough@nepcoinc.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 8" day of November, 2023, I served a true copy of this document and the attached exhibits, by first-class mail, to: BoylstonD3 LLC c/o Shona Pendse 617 Boylston Street Brookline MA 02445 /s/ MarleneIm —_ Marlene Im Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 EXHIBIT 10 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 10/27/23, 2:22 PM Juliet Davison, Founder wal DAVISONLAW Juliet Davison Juliet Davison has been practicing law for over 30 years and founded Davison Law in 2008 after many years as a partner at the Boston trial firm of Todd & Weld LLP and several years with the international firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Admitted to practice in Massachusetts and New York, Juliet has a broad litigation background and deep experience representing individuals and companies in the trial and appellate courts, in mediation and arbitration. She specializes in business litigation, employment litigation, and trust and estate litigation. Juliet understands that clients seek seasoned advice, effective strategy, efficient implementation, and, most importantly, results. Practice Areas: * Business Litigation * Employment Litigation * Trust and Estate Litigation Awards and Recognition: * Juliet has been named as a Top 100 SuperLawyer® and a Top 50 Woman SuperLawyer@ in Massachusetts in each of the past five years (2018-2022). Juliet is recognized by Best Lawyers in America® in each of the following practice areas: Commercial Litigation, Labor and Employment Litigation, and Litigation Estates and Trusts. Juliet was recognized by Boston Magazine as a Top Lawyer in Commercial Litigation in the Region in 2021 and 2022. Juliet was named a 2018 Top Woman of Law by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Juliet is rated AV® Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating in legal ability and ethical standards. Education: » J.D,, University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall), 1990 « BA, Brown University (1985) * Juliet is fluent in French and received the French baccalaureat from the Lycee Francais D’Antananarivo with “mention bien” before attending Brown Bar and Court Admissions: » New York (1991) * Massachusetts (1993) * U.S, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit * US. District Court for the District of Massachusetts hittps://www.davisonlawilc.com/attorneys/juliet-davison/ 12 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 10/27/23, 2:22 PM Jufiet Davison, Founder . U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado » U.S, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado Civic, Professional and Charitable Activity: . Former President Federal Bar Association - Massachusetts Chapter ° Former Member Boston Bar Association Council * Former Co-Chair, Small Firm/Solo Section of the Boston Bar Association Fellow, Boston Bar Foundation Member, Boston Inn of Courts Volunteer/Rosie’s Place ® Volunteer/Hospitality Homes . Trial Advisor for the Harvard Trial Advocacy Workshops 2008-2012 Memberships: * Boston Bar Association » American Bar Association * Federal Bar Association - MA Chapter DAVISON LAW, LLC | There's No Substitute for Experience © Copyright 2023 617 345 9990 | juliet@davisonlawile.com Mailing Address: P.O. Box 301087, Boston, MA 02130 Street Address: One Marina Park Drive, Boston, MA 02210 hitps:/www.davisontawilc.com/attorneys/juliet-davison/ 22 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 EXHIBIT 11 10 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 sinister se is 2 es a . Fou Davis Boston attorney” backgroundani yearsof le,therp and appel- significant part of her vingthe covenants, ‘tmust an lon and sexu lence cluding share- 1d corporations, Leave Act di for breach of con. advise yers and tract, misrepre fiduciary id deceptive trade and frequently represents of Chapter93. ition. ona Rule 12(b){6) iness Litigat dhere, Davisor thepl d he was the nm that were in dispute s wife, whom Da- that Da- is client es and f fidi tation ie hush: ds 1. MLW at bo) fafts Hedi Founda 5 Pla atvatd Biel Ad 2012) la 83 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket. Number 2382CV00126 in nse rite readers, _ Welcome to Massachusetts G Ab ers, a feature “buted in 2020 to showcase leaders in the egal community by practi area, For this] we've chos to foo on Business Lu tigation iwyers. The eros featured pee were ir colleagues and ‘chosenbys panel from Lar Me Te ate lwyers ig More outstandingM: husetts attorneys in a variety of} 2023 po A Be etts ohan. Neil... tne seeeeee wane tee: nnt 3 Seth B. Orkand eee MarkW. Penereeeneetearstonsenenay S. +8 ee) “ Pirozzolo w...:... 08: one: weB4 D ErikW. Weibu eoneee sence eone teen BS ChristopheWeld r Jr. a B6 Jeremy feltman ones seghecess Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 EXHIBIT 12 11 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 111623, Case Detai ssach it N 19 MISC 000320 BoyistonD3 LLC, et al. v. Richardson, Jonathon | |,Le et al. RUBIN oes a vn | si vir rnin sine Case Type: Miscellaneous Case Status: Closed File Date 06/27/2019 DCM Track: Initiating Action: MRC - Determine Validity of Encumbrances, G.L. Chapter 240, § 11 - 14 Status Date: 06/27/2019 Case Judge Rubin, Hon. DianeR Next Event 619 Boylston Street Brookline on aes imei “i es gins Ail Information Party Event ‘Docket Financial Receipt Disposition eer Party Information se ois acini is BoylstonD3 LLC - Plaintiff |Party Attorney tia More Party Information Pendse, Shona - Plain’ {Party Attorney [Attorney [Pro Se |Bar Code {PROPER |Address jPhone Number \, More Party Information Richardson, Jonathon More Party Information Richardson, Dorothy https:/www.masscourts.org/eservices/?x=nx8rCzF 2uhOym*TV**VJqGy2T 5YliF HppnWeHbDp2sUKzfUYta5EcyU21A*XaLtrXllyDGLC7P01 0eDXEbR. 424 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 11/8/23, 8:28 AM Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court N2 } ‘(Party Attome More Party Information _ Merchia, Pankaj es More Party More Party Informs Information : John M. Keough, Trustee of Fisher Hill Realty Trust u/d/t dated February 1, 2019 ss More Party {nformation i Richardson, Margaret E. sr Party Attorney Attorney Chapman, Esq., Tyler E Bar Code 637852 Address Todd and Weld LLP One Federal St 27th Floor Boston, MA 02110-2012 Phone Number (617)720-2626 Attorney Furman, Esq., Matthew S Bar Code |679751 Address Todd and Weld LLP One Federal St 27th Floor Boston, MA 02110 {Phone Number ((617)720-2626 a ce om sea ce More Pa Hy. {information Brookline Boylston, LLC Defendant reteset esters Party Attorney Attorney ‘Allen, Esq., Jeffrey P Bar Code 015500 Address Lawson and Weitzen LLP 88 Black Falcon Ave Boston, MA 02210 Phone Number (617)439-4990 Attorne’ Gentile, Esq., Donald Bar Code 672657 Address Lawson and Weitzen LLP 88 Black Falcon Ave Suite 345 Boston, MA 02210 Phone Number {(617)439-4990 o https:/Awww.masscourts.org/eservices/?x=nx8rCzF 2uhOym*TV“*VJqGyzT 5 YliF Hppn W8HbDp2sUKzfU Yta5EcyU21A*XaLtrxllyDGLC7P010eDXEbR... 2121 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 41/8/23, 8:28 AM Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court N2 More.fe Pally More PartyLor information Events ints con Si Date Date Session Session Location Type Event Judge Result 08/16/2019 Rubin Case Management Rubin, Hon: Rescheduled 10:00 AM Conference Diane R. 09/20/2019 Rubin Courtroom 1104 - Case Management Rubin, Hon. Held 10:30AM Eleventh Floor Conference Diane R. 12/23/2019 Rubin Status Conference Rubin, Hon. Rescheduled 14:00 AM Diane R: 01/06/2020 Rubin Status Conference Rubin, Hon Rescheduled 02:30 PM Diane R. 01/28/2020 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Status Conference Rubin, Hon: Held 11:00 AM Fourth Floor Diane R. 04/14/2020 Rubin Motion Rubin, Hon Rescheduled-Covid-19 02:30 PM Diane R. emergency 15/05/2020 Rubin Summary Judgment Rubin, Hon Rescheduled-Covid-19 10:00 AM Hearing Diane R. emergency 06/15/2020 Rubin Courtroom 404 - Status Conference Rubin, Hon Held via video 10:00 AM Fourth Floor Diane R 08/03/2020 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Status Conference Rubin, Hon Held via video 10:30 AM Fourth Floor Diane R: 08/10/2020 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Motion Rubin, Hon Held via video 02:30 PM Fourth Floor Diane R. 03/09/2022 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Motion Rubin, Hon: Held via video 10:00 AM Fourth Floor Diane R: 06/07/2022 Rubin Courtroom 403 - Motion Rubin, Hon Heid via video 02:30 PM Fourth Floor Diane R. Docket Information Docket Docket Text Amount Image Date Qwed Avail. 06/27/2019 Complaint filed. @ Image 06/27/2019 Case assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04 06/27/2019 Land Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 405314 Date: 06/27/2019 $240.00 06/27/2019 Land Court surcharge Receipt: 405314 Date: 06/27/2019 $15.00 06/27/2019 Land Court summons Receipt: 405314 Date: 06/27/2019 $10.00 06/27/2019 Uniform Counsel! Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff. 16/27/2019 Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server and Order of Appointment filed and ALLOWED. Image Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. 07/03/2019 The case has been assigned to the A Track. Notice sent 07/03/2019 Event Scheduled Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R Event: Case Management Conference Image https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/?x=nx8rCzF 2unOym*TV""VJqGyzT 5Y liF HppnW8HbDp2sUKZ{UYta5EcyU21A*XaLtrXllyDGLC7P01 0eDXEbR, 3/21 Date Filed 11/8/2023 10:49 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00126 11/8/23, 8:28 AM Case Detai _Massachusens Tal Gout ~ say ket Docket Text Amount Image Owed Avail. Date: 08/16/2019 Time: 10:00 AM (Notice sent to Atty. Mare Osborne) 07/24/2019 Defendants' Emergency Motion for Extension to Respond to Compiaint, filed Image 07/24/2019 Email from Atty, Osborne: "We do oppose the motion, as we have previously granted them an extension to answer our rather short complaint.” 07/24/2019 The court is in receipt of "Defendants' Emergency Motion for Extension to Respond to Complaint" and Atty. Osborne's emailed objection. While the court takes note of his objection, the Motion is ALLOWED. Defendants’ have until image August 5, 2019 to file an Answer to the Complaint." Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R 07/26/2019 Event Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 08/16/2019 10:00AM Has been: Rescheduled to September 20, 2019 at 10:30 am, at the request of counsel and by agreement of the court. 07/26/2019 Event Scheduled Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R Event: Case Management Conference Image Date: 09/20/2019 Time: 10:30 AM 2°. (Notice sent to Attys. Osborne and Furman) 07/30/2019 Interdepartmental Consolidation Request, filed. 08/05/2019 Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim filed by Jonathon and Dorothy Richardson.