A quarterly summary and brief analysis of significant decisions issued by the Massachusetts Superior Court Business Litigation Session. A service of O’Connor, Carnathan and Mack LLC.		  

August 2004
 

Volume 1
Number 1
Page 4
 

Summarizing opinions from April 1, 2004 through
June. 30, 2004


Party Held to Accepted Offer of Judgment, Statute of Limitations Bars Contract Claim
 

 
 


 


 




 
     

O  T  H  E  R      D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N  S  :

Nortek, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 196
(May 28, 2004, 02-4259 BLS) (Van Gestel, J.).
     

In a complex insurance cover-age case, plaintiffs challenged the defendant insurance company’s allocation of a series of claims across several policy years. One plaintiff had previously made an offer of judgment, which defendant accepted. The plaintiff apparently made this offer without realizing it would also
 




 

 
foreclose its counterclaims and tried to withdraw it on the eve of trial. Judge Van Gestel denied leave to withdraw it. The Court further held that the other plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, where it knew about the alleged breach of contract more than six years before filing.

 


 


 




 

 
 
     
     


Shareholder Derivative Suit Dismissed With-out Leave to Amend
 
 

 



 

South Shore Gastroninterology UA 6/6/1980 FBO Harold Jacob v. Selden, 2004
Mass. Super. LEXIS 199 (May 7, 2004, 03-2630 BLS) (Van Gestel, J.).
     

Where a shareholder failed to make demand on a Delaware corporation before bringing a derivative suit and failed to allege with particularity reasons why such

 

 

demand would have been futile, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice and without leave to amend the complaint.

 





 
 
     
     


Administrative Directive Estab-lishing Business Session Does Not Supersede Venue Statute
 
 

 





 

Madavor Media, LLC v. Ashton Int’l Media, Inc., 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 180
(April 30, 2004, 04-1829 BLS) (Van Gestel, J.).
     

Plaintiffs properly filed their complaint in the Business Session under Administrative Directive No. 03-1. The Directive, however, did not change the


 


 

venue statute and the defendants were entitled to insist on transfer of venue to either Middlesex or Worcester County.

 



 



 
 
P A G E   1  2  3  4  5