In this case, claimant Jen Chen sought to amend a preliminary order forfeiting a Mercedes-Benz vehicle to the United States after her son Stephen Chen pleaded guilty to a marijuana distribution conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846. The vehicle had been identified in the indictment's forfeiture allegation and was seized during the conspiracy period; the claimant asserted she held superior ownership because she had funded most of the purchase and intended only a conditional gift. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the transaction constituted a completed inter vivos gift under Massachusetts law, with donative intent and delivery of possession and title to Stephen, so that any interest the claimant retained did not vest prior to the commission of the offense. The court therefore held that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a legal right superior to the defendant's under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A) and denied the petition, entering a final order of forfeiture.
The case involved competing claims to the proceeds from the court-ordered sale of the motor vessel Osprey. L & L Electronics and Essex Boat Works performed work on the vessel for its owner, Watersedge Group, and asserted maritime liens for necessaries totaling about $80,000; Tropical Aircraft Company held a first preferred ship mortgage securing loans made by its president to Watersedge, with an outstanding balance of roughly $725,000. The court held that the mortgage had priority over the liens and awarded the sale proceeds to Tropical. It reasoned that the mortgage was recorded before the liens arose and that there was no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, or other inequitable conduct that would warrant subordinating the mortgage. The court rejected arguments based on the "stranger to the vessel" doctrine and equitable subordination, finding the mortgage holder had not controlled the vessel's operations or engaged in unfair dealing.
This case involves a qui tam relator who sued his former employer, a medical device manufacturer, and its parent company under the federal False Claims Act and similar state laws, alleging five schemes to defraud Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health programs through improper billing practices such as charging for sales instead of rentals, providing free devices without adjusting prices, billing for non-covered items, submitting fitting fees without proper services, and paying illegal kickbacks. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims failed to meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims except the wrongful termination claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), reasoning that the fraud allegations consisted of general or conclusory statements lacking details on the time, place, persons involved, or content of any false representations, while the termination claim sufficiently alleged protected conduct and causation. The court also denied leave to amend the complaint and dismissed claims against the unserved subsidiary.
In Bliss v. Fisher, plaintiffs who served as commissioners of a municipal electric department sued town officials for malicious prosecution, civil rights violations, and intentional torts, claiming the defendants improperly prompted an investigation by the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General into the use of bond funds for an internet service project, resulting in criminal charges that were ultimately dismissed. The OIG, not a party to the suit, moved to quash a deposition subpoena for an Assistant Deputy Inspector General, asserting an evidentiary privilege under Massachusetts law to prevent testimony about the investigation. The court denied the motion, declining to recognize the claimed privilege after applying the relevant federal test for adopting state privileges, and further held that any such privilege had been waived through the OIG's prior public report, follow-up letter, and testimony by its personnel in the related criminal proceedings. The decision emphasized that the OIG's testimony was sought by all parties and was necessary for a fair resolution of the dispute.
The case involves three former North Attleboro Electric Department Commissioners who sued the town and various officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state laws, alleging civil rights violations and intentional torts stemming from their criminal prosecution for misuse of municipal bond funds; the plaintiffs claimed an exculpatory videotape was improperly withheld at a show-cause hearing. They moved to subpoena and depose the clerk magistrate who presided over that hearing to address alleged false testimony and evidence issues. The court denied the motion, holding that judges may not be compelled to testify about their mental processes in official duties and that factual observations from the hearing could be obtained from other sources like transcripts or other witnesses, with no showing that the magistrate was the sole source of such information.
The case involved a Pakistani citizen who sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service negligently delayed processing his H-1B visa extension and work authorization applications, resulting in lost wages while he lacked legal work authorization. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the FTCA only confers jurisdiction over claims where a private person would be liable under analogous state law, and the plaintiff had identified no Massachusetts authority imposing a duty of care on a private person comparable to the government's visa-processing obligations.
