Opinion
14-P-1170
06-18-2015
INVENT RESOURCES, INC. v. RICHARD PAVELLE & others.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Defendant Urszula Hed appeals from an order of the Superior Court denying her motion for sanctions pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 11, as amended, 456 Mass. 1401 (2010), against the plaintiff's counsel, Robert N. Meltzer, and denying her motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6F, against Meltzer and Attorney Mary C. Casey. For the reasons stated by the Superior Court judge in her thoughtful memorandum and order issued after an evidentiary hearing, we affirm.
We review the judge's rulings for abuse of discretion. "A judge has discretion in imposing sanctions under rule 11(a), and our function is to determine whether the judge abused that discretion, which includes considering whether proper legal standards were applied and whether there was reasonable support for the judge's evaluation of the facts." Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 110, 114 (2004) (citation omitted). "In so doing, we accept the judge's findings of fact as true unless they are clearly erroneous." Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exch. Trust Co., 85 Mass. App. Ct. 418, 424 (2014). "On the other hand, to ensure that the ultimate findings and conclusions are consistent with the law, we scrutinize without deference the legal standard which the judge applied to the facts." Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 621 (1992).
The judge found that Meltzer filed the second amended complaint based on a subjective good faith belief that the allegations were adequately grounded in law and fact. The judge noted that the parties faced "hotly contested factual issues regarding corporate control of [Invent Resources, Inc.]," which warranted each party's assertion of the other's potential liability. Although the factual basis for the allegations "was relatively thin as it related to Urszula Hed," the judge found that "it was more than speculation or supposition and was sufficient to support the claims." Although characterizing the diversion of corporate funds as a conspiracy to "steal money" or commit "fraud" may have pushed the limits of zealous advocacy, we conclude that the judge acted within her discretion in denying the motions.
Order denying motion for sanctions and motion for attorney's fees and costs affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Meade & Massing, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: June 18, 2015.