Marabello v. Boston Bark Corp., 974 N.E.2d 636

Boston Bark bought Marabello’s mulch business in March 2006 and leased the Concord parcel.
Town zoning enforcement issued a July 8, 2008 order; Boston Bark appealed and later withdrew the appeal.
Settlement reached October 31, 2008 required mulch/equipment removal by July 1, 2009.
Wetlands Commission observed mulch and issued enforcement orders in 2008, delaying completion and necessitating restoration.
Concord District Court eviction for nonpayment was stayed then executed July 22, 2009.
Boston Bark did not remove mulch by the settlement deadline; Marabello sued Boston Bark for breach on January 28, 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Marabello's breach claim based on petitioning activity?	Marabello contends not based on petitioning.	Boston Bark contends it is based on petitioning.	Not based on petitioning; motion denied.

Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (Mass. 1998) (anti-SLAPP threshold and petitioning protection)
Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 (Mass. 2002) (interlocutory appeal from denial of anti-SLAPP motion)
Wenger v. Aceto, 451 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2008) (claims based on statements to court or petitioning activities)
North Am. Expositions Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Corcoran, 452 Mass. 852 (Mass. 2009) (statements to governmental bodies as petitioning)
Global NAPS, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 63 Mass. App. Ct. 600 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) (petitioning-related communications and protection scope)
Baker v. Parsons, 434 Mass. 543 (Mass. 2001) (analysis of anti-SLAPP framework and petitioning)