Our Most Popular Posts of 2018
Posted in Abuse of Process, Chapter 93A, Contract Law, Data Security, Debt Collection, Gaming, Government Agencies, Licensing, Motion to Dismiss, Practice and Procedure, Trusts & Estates
It’s been a busy year at the BLS Blog. As we wrap up 2018, take a look at our top five most well-read posts:
- America’s Test Kitchen Faces Abuse of Process Claim: Judge Salinger denied
America’s Test Kitchen’s motion to dismiss an abuse-of-process claim asserted by William Thorndike, Jr. According to Thorndike, America’s Test Kitchen brought a baseless lawsuit to hinder Christopher Kimball’s efforts, supported by Thorndike, to compete against America’s Test Kitchen. That assertion, according to Judge Salinger, was sufficient to state an abuse-of-process claim.
- Mohegan Sun’s Motion to Complete the Administrative Record in Casino Litigation Denied: Judge Sanders denied a motion by Mohegan Sun to “complete the administrative record.” The motion sought internal communications of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission concerning its decision to award a gaming license to Wynn to operate a casino in Everett, Massachusetts.
- Equifax’s Motion to Dismiss Denied: Data Breach Complaint Alleges Sufficient Facts about Ownership or Licensing of Personal Information: Judge Salinger denied Equifax’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General. Judge Salinger rejected Equifax’s argument that the Commonwealth did not adequately allege that Equifax “owns or licenses” personal information within the meaning of the Massachusetts Data Breach Notification Law.
- Trust Beneficiary Permitted to Contest Trust Despite No-Contest Clause: Judge Leibensperger ruled that a trust beneficiary could assert a trust was procured by fraud despite the presence of a no-contest clause.
- Gold’s Gym Debt Collector Escapes Chapter 93A Liability Where No ‘Separate’and ‘Distinct’ Injury Alleged: Judge Salinger granted summary judgment in favor of a defendant that violated Massachusetts debt collection law where the plaintiff failed to show an injury “separate” and “distinct” from the regulatory violation itself.