Steinmetz v. Coyle & Caron, Inc.
862 F.3d 128
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- John and Jane Steinmetz planned to build a house on James Island, Cohasset, MA; neighbors formed the James Island Preservation Group to oppose the project.
- The Preservation Group's lawyer hired Coyle & Caron, a landscape design firm, to prepare visual renderings that were submitted to and presented at a Cohasset Conservation Commission hearing; a draft rendering appeared on Facebook.
- The Conservation Commission denied the Steinmetzes' application, citing impacts to salt-marsh wetlands and failure to show entitlement to a variance; commission materials did not explicitly rely on Coyle & Caron renderings.
- The Steinmetzes sued Coyle & Caron in federal court asserting negligence, gross negligence, defamation, and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, claiming the renderings were false and caused reputational and procedural harm.
- Coyle & Caron moved to dismiss under Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court granted dismissal on anti-SLAPP grounds and alternatively on Rule 12(b)(6).
- The First Circuit affirmed that the renderings constitute petitioning activity and that, if the anti-SLAPP statute applies to third-party contractors, negligence, gross negligence, and the chapter 93A claims must be dismissed; it found the defamation claim colorable and certified to the Massachusetts SJC the threshold question whether third‑party contractors like Coyle & Caron may invoke the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of MA anti-SLAPP to third‑party contractors | Steinmetzes: anti‑SLAPP shouldn't protect a paid, disinterested contractor; statute limited to those petitioning as citizens | Coyle & Caron: statute covers those who assist petitioners (attorneys/agents/vendors) and thus may move to dismiss | Certified to Massachusetts SJC as unsettled state-law question; First Circuit did not decide final answer |
| Whether renderings are "petitioning activity" under §59H | Steinmetzes: renderings were false and non‑petitioning commercial conduct | Coyle & Caron: renderings were submitted to and presented before a governmental body in connection with pending proceedings | Held: renderings are petitioning activity if statute applies to Coyle & Caron |
| Whether renderings lacked any reasonable factual or legal basis / caused actual injury | Steinmetzes: expert affidavit shows renderings were highly inaccurate and therefore devoid of factual basis and caused harm | Coyle & Caron: renderings were based on architects’ plans and photos, contained caveats about limits, and Commission decision did not cite them | Held: Steinmetzes failed to show no reasonable factual basis; Court did not decide actual injury because lack of factual-basis showing dispositive |
| Colorability / primary intent re: specific claims (negligence, gross negligence, ch.93A, defamation) | Steinmetzes: claims are colorable and not brought to chill petitioning | Coyle & Caron: claims are frivolous or lack legal basis (no duty, no business relationship, opinion) | Held: negligence, gross negligence, and ch.93A claims lack colorable chance and would be dismissed if statute applies; defamation claim is colorable and survives anti‑SLAPP step on the present record |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Parsons, 750 N.E.2d 953 (Mass. 2001) (articulates burden‑shifting test for MA anti‑SLAPP special motion)
- Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 75 N.E.3d 21 (Mass. 2017) (augments anti‑SLAPP framework and adds "primary intent" / colorability inquiry)
- Kobrin v. Gastfriend, 821 N.E.2d 60 (Mass. 2005) (suggests statute protects petitioning as citizens, not mere contractors)
- Cardno ChemRisk, LLC v. Foytlin, 68 N.E.3d 1180 (Mass. 2017) (discusses limits on anti‑SLAPP coverage for vendors under contractual relationships)
- Plante v. Wylie, 824 N.E.2d 461 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) (extends anti‑SLAPP protection to attorneys acting on behalf of petitioning clients)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine on petitioning activity immunity)
- Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (recognizes petitioning-related immunity from antitrust liability)