Bristol Asphalt, Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc.
493 Mass. 539
Mass.2024Background
- The case involves two business competitors, Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. (plaintiffs) and the Todesca litigants (defendants), both seeking to operate asphalt plants in Rochester, Massachusetts.
- The Todesca litigants engaged in a series of administrative and legal challenges to block Bristol’s efforts to secure permits and approvals for a new asphalt plant, after Bristol proposed building a facility in the same industrial zone.
- Several challenges by Todesca included criticisms of Bristol’s site plan approval, extension of wetlands permits, and petitions for Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review. All failed before administrative and judicial bodies.
- Following the failures, Bristol sued Todesca for abuse of process and unfair/unlawful trade practices under G.L. c. 93A, claiming Todesca's legal efforts constituted sham petitioning.
- Todesca filed a special motion to dismiss under Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute (G.L. c. 231, § 59H), arguing their conduct was legitimate petitioning protected from liability and suit.
- The lower court denied Todesca’s motion, finding their activities to be a sham; appeals followed, leading the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to reconsider the analytical framework for Massachusetts anti-SLAPP motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of anti-SLAPP statute to defendant’s conduct | Todesca’s petitioning was sham; should not be protected | Legal challenges are protected petitioning under anti-SLAPP | Defendant’s petitioning was sham and not protected |
| Analytical framework for anti-SLAPP dismissal motions | Blanchard framework is too complex, delays cases | Opposition to further expansion, prefer return to Duracraft | Returns to Duracraft, eliminates Blanchard “2d path” |
| Whether Bristol met burden to show petitioning was sham | Provided evidence that all challenges lacked legal/factual basis | Conclusory affidavits of good faith; attacks were legitimate | Bristol met burden on all challenged activities |
| Standard of appellate review for anti-SLAPP motions | Argues for de novo (not abuse of discretion) review | No clear position | Court adopts de novo review standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (Strict construction of anti-SLAPP statute; threshold showing required)
- Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 477 Mass. 141 (Original “second path” anti-SLAPP test, now eliminated)
- Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 483 Mass. 200 (Further clarified and complicated Blanchard I “second path”)
- Baker v. Parsons, 434 Mass. 543 (Burden on special motion opponent to show petitioning was devoid of support)
- Van Liew v. Stansfield, 474 Mass. 31 (Application dismissed as “devoid” when lacking required factual/legal basis)
- Sahli v. Bull HN Info. Sys., Inc., 437 Mass. 696 (Right to petition under state and federal law)