Tomaselli v. Beaulieu, 967 F. Supp. 2d 423

Background

Plaintiffs Gracemarie and Joyce Tomaselli own property in Salisbury, MA and have long disputed a 1992 sewer betterment assessment and ongoing sewer-use charges assessed by the Town. They opened a restaurant in 1992 and faced license suspension and foreclosure efforts in the 1990s over unpaid taxes/fees.
Plaintiffs litigated related claims in state court (1997 suit; ATB appeal culminating in unfavorable rulings and appeals through 2009) and administrative proceedings (abatement applications; ATB ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over betterment claims and that sewer-use charges were supported).
Plaintiffs filed the federal action in 2008 raising constitutional claims under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (via § 1983), state constitutional and statutory claims (Mass. Declaration of Rights, MCRA, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A), RICO claims, and a variety of state common-law torts and conspiracy allegations.
The Municipal Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (and service/pleading technical grounds). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all claims; the District Judge adopted that recommendation and exercised pendent jurisdiction to enter final judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Central factual/legal disputes: (1) when Plaintiffs discovered the alleged injury (timeliness); (2) whether plaintiffs pleaded constitutional and statutory claims with required particularity and exhaustion; and (3) sufficiency of allegations supporting RICO, Chapter 93A, and various tort/conspiracy claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the § 1983 and related constitutional claims timely?	Tomasellis contend discovery rule/fraudulent concealment tolled accrual; allege they did not learn true project funding until ~2005–2006.	Defendants: plaintiffs knew of injury by 1994 (charges asserted then); limitations not tolled; discovery/fraud claims inadequately pleaded.	Claims accrued no later than 1994; discovery/fraud tolling not shown; claims time-barred (3-year § 1983 rule).
Do Plaintiffs state First Amendment (and other constitutional) claims with sufficient factual particularity?	Plaintiffs cite removal from 2008 town meeting, edited broadcasts, and restrictions on speech as retaliation.	Defendants: allegations are generalized; fail to identify specific defendants’ actions, protected speech, or causation; many actions within moderator’s authority.	First Amendment and other constitutional counts fail to plead individualized, plausible facts and are dismissed on the merits.
Do Plaintiffs adequately plead RICO (§ 1962(c) and (d))?	Plaintiffs assert an association-in-fact enterprise, pattern of fraud and mail/wire fraud predicates.	Defendants: allegations are conclusory; no defined enterprise, no pleaded predicate acts with Rule 9(b) particularity, no pattern shown.	RICO claims lack the required particularity and fail to plead enterprise, predicate acts, or pattern; dismissed.
Are Chapter 93A claims and state torts viable?	Plaintiffs assert unfair/deceptive practices, conspiracy, and various intentional torts arising from the assessment and enforcement conduct.	Defendants: 93A claims time-barred (4-year statute), pre-suit demand requirement not met for § 9, municipalities not engaged in trade or commerce, and statutory immunity bars many intentional torts against the Town; tort pleadings are conclusory or privileged.	93A counts dismissed as time-barred and for failure to satisfy pre-suit/demand and standing; state torts/conspiracy insufficiently pleaded and many barred by statutory immunity; dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plaintiff must plead enough facts to make relief plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory legal statements not entitled to presumption of truth)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (§ 1983 borrows state personal-injury limitations period)
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (regulatory takings principles)
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (total regulatory takings doctrine)
Gorelik v. Costin, 605 F.3d 118 (1st Cir. standard for First Amendment retaliation)
Marrero‑Gutierrez v. Molina, 491 F.3d 1 (accrual/inquiry notice for § 1983 claims)
Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34 (Rule 9(b) applies to RICO predicate fraud allegations)
Bessette v. Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., 230 F.3d 439 (heightened specificity required in RICO pleadings)