Summers et al v. Goldstein et al
| Jeffrey D. Summers and Jeffrey's House Inc. |
| Mark A. Goldstein, Jeffrey P. Stephens, John Moran, Robert Lanciani, Phil Jordan, Kevin Roy, Sally Tata, City of Fitchburg and AND OTHER AS YET UNNAMED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF FITCHBURG |
| 1:2015cv13358 |
| September 14, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Middlesex |
| Denise J. Casper |
| Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1218 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
67
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Court ALLOWS Defendants' motion for summary judgment, D. 52.(Hourihan, Lisa)
|
|
Filing
31
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Court ALLOWS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. D. 18. Plaintiffs shall have until September 29, 2016 to show good cause for their failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) and file proof of service. The Court ALLOWS Defendants' motion as to claims for attorneys' fees and costs (Count I), but will allow the same request to stand as part of the prayer for relief. The Court ALLOWS Defenda nts' motion as to claims against Fitchburg and the Municipal Defendants in their official capacities for abuse of process (Count II), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VI) and interference with advantageous business relationshi ps (Count VII) and those claims are DISMISSED. The Court ALLOWS the Municipal Defendants' motion as to claims in their individual capacities for abuse of process (Count II), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VI) and interferen ce with advantageous business relationships (Count VII) and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court ALLOWS Defendants' motion as to the private nuisance claims (Count III) and those claims are DISMISSED. The Court ALLOWS Defend ants' motion as to discrimination claims under the ADA and FHAA in the form of disparate treatment or impact or imposition of the building permit fine (Counts V & IV) which are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion as to discrimination claims under the MZA and reasonable accommodation claims under the ADA and FHAA (Counts V & IV) relating to the Sprinkler Law.(Hourihan, Lisa)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
