477 Harrison Ave, LLC v. JACE Boston, LLC, 134 N.E.3d 91

Background

477 Harrison Ave., LLC (developer) bought the property in 2011 and sought zoning relief in 2012; neighboring owners (JACE Boston/Leon, the abutters) repeatedly opposed redevelopment in administrative and judicial forums.
The abutters prevailed in a declaratory-judgment action limiting demolition of a shared party wall; appeals and litigation followed, and the parties entered an agreement for judgment that was later entered as a Superior Court judgment.
After pursuing an "as‑of‑right" redevelopment, the developer sought additional variances in 2014–2015; the developer filed a separate civil complaint in March 2015 alleging abuse of process and a G. L. c. 93A claim against the abutters.
The abutters filed anti‑SLAPP and other motions; this Court previously decided aspects of that dispute in 477 Mass. 162 (2017) (Harrison I). Following remand and additional pleadings, the abutters filed amended counterclaims (breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant; abuse of process; c.93A).
The developer filed a special motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti‑SLAPP statute (G. L. c. 231, § 59H); the motion judge denied relief and the developer appealed directly to the SJC.
The SJC applied the augmented Duracraft/Blanchard anti‑SLAPP framework sequentially and concluded the contract claims were not colorable and the remaining counterclaims were SLAPP‑based and retaliatory; it vacated the denial and remanded for entry of an order allowing dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper application of the augmented Duracraft anti‑SLAPP framework	Movant (plaintiff/developer) argued the judge failed to apply the Duracraft/Blanchard framework sequentially and failed to assess evidence at each stage	Abutters argued their counterclaims survived the anti‑SLAPP motion under the augmented framework	Court held the framework must be applied sequentially; judge erred by skipping steps, so developer met threshold burdens and framework controls outcome
Enforceability of the agreement for judgment as an independent contract (breach and implied covenant claims)	Developer: the agreement was merged into a court judgment and ceased to exist as an independent contract, so contract claims lack a substantial non‑petitioning basis	Abutters: the agreement retained contractual force and the developer breached its terms and duties	Court held the agreement merged into judgment absent express reservation; contract and implied covenant claims are not colorable and cannot survive anti‑SLAPP review
Whether abuse of process and c.93A counterclaims are based solely on petitioning activity and/or are sham	Developer: these counterclaims are based solely on its contemporaneous petitioning activity in this litigation and thus fall within §59H	Abutters: their abuse and c.93A claims are colorable, supported by affidavits, and seek redress for real injury—so they are not SLAPPs	Court held developer met threshold (claims are based solely on petitioning); abutters established colorability but failed to show claims were not primarily retaliatory—claims objectively burden the developer’s petitioning rights, so dismissal required
Remedy and scope of dismissal	Developer sought dismissal of the amended counterclaims under §59H	Abutters sought to preserve counterclaims and damages (including defense costs and emotional distress)	Court vacated the denial of the special motion, directed dismissal of the contract claims and of the counterclaims that are SLAPPs, and remanded to enter an order allowing the special motion to dismiss

Key Cases Cited

Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (1998) (established anti‑SLAPP sequential threshold and second‑stage framework)
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 477 Mass. 141 (2017) (augmented Duracraft framework clarifying second‑stage analysis)
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 483 Mass. 200 (2019) (further explication of colorability and retaliatory‑purpose inquiry)
477 Harrison Ave., LLC v. JACE Boston, LLC, 477 Mass. 162 (2017) (prior SJC decision in this dispute addressing anti‑SLAPP issues)
Kelton Corp. v. County of Worcester, 426 Mass. 355 (1997) (merger of settlement agreement into judgment extinguishes independent contractual remedies absent reservation)
Bowers v. Board of Appeals of Marshfield, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 29 (1983) (consent judgment as an agreement seeking court relief)
Baker v. Parsons, 434 Mass. 543 (2001) (statutory standard for proving a petition is a sham under anti‑SLAPP statute)
Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 456 Mass. 627 (2010) (actual injury for anti‑SLAPP purposes may include embarrassment and costs of defending litigation)
Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643 (1986) (groundlessness is not an essential element of abuse of process)