Town of Hanover v. New England Regional Council of Carpenters
467 Mass. 587
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Association provided litigation support for taxpayers challenging town expenditure; not a named party in 2009 litigation.
- Town sought injunctive relief and later damages for abuse of process; the AG findings noted fraud in prequalification of bidding.
- Fordyce decision allowed town to adhere to lowest-bid contract, with subsequent stipulation to dismissal with prejudice.
- Town filed 2011 abuse-of-process claim against the defendant for its backing of the 2009 suit; defendant moved to dismiss under G. L. c. 231, § 59H.
- Trial court denied the motion on the theory that a non-named association cannot invoke anti-SLAPP; court agreed the association could have petitioning activity.
- Court holds that litigation support by an association constitutes protected petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute and remands for entry of an order granting the motion to dismiss with costs and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does supporting litigation qualify as petitioning activity under §59H? | Town: no; only named parties can petition. | NERC: yes; association can petition through its support. | Yes, protected petitioning activity. |
| Can an association not named in a suit bring a special motion to dismiss under §59H? | Town argues no standing. | NERC; association may invoke anti-SLAPP rights. | Yes, association may bring the motion. |
| Was the town able to show that defendant’s petitioning had no reasonable factual support or arguable basis? | Town: support lacked substantial basis; caused injury. | Anti-SLAPP burden shifts after initial showing; others. | Town failed to show lack of reasonable factual support; burden not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (Mass. 1998) (definition of protected petitioning activity; non-necessity of naming parties)
- Kobrin v. Gastfriend, 443 Mass. 327 (Mass. 2005) (limits of standing to seek anti-SLAPP relief; context of redress and petitioning)
- Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 (Mass. 2002) (reporting violations and actions constituting petitioning activity)
- Office One, Inc. v. Lopez, 437 Mass. 113 (Mass. 2002) (threshold showing; protected activity includes non-named petitioners)
- McLarnon v. Jokisch, 431 Mass. 343 (Mass. 2000) (petitioning by non-named individuals; First Amendment protections)
- Plante v. Wylie, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 151 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) (ant-SLAPP protections extend to attorneys representing petitioning parties)