In Ortiz v. Eversource Energy, a putative class action, plaintiffs brought suit against Eversource Energy alleging that Eversource knowingly marketed natural gas and related services as clean and safe for residential consumers and the environment despite knowing this was not
In order to state a viable Chapter 93A, § 11 claim, a plaintiff must make specific, factual allegations about the conduct that occurred primarily and substantially within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
In another appeal of a summary process action, the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed two questions related to Chapter 93A on appeal in 133 W. Main St. Realty, LLC v. Kimball. First, whether the landlord was engaged in trade or commerce
In Bucci v. Campbell, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in a summary decision, clarified standards that govern a trial court’s conclusions about whether acts or practices are unfair or deceptive under Chapter 93A, Section 2.
The underlying case concerned whether the
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently addressed the pleading requirements for Chapter 93A, Section 11 claims in the case of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Compex Legal Servs. Liberty sued Compex for allegedly
To pursue a Chapter 93A claim, there must be some business, commercial, or transactional relationship between the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s). An indirect commercial link—such as upstream purchasers—may be sufficient to state a valid claim, but there must ultimately be some
The scope of Chapter 93A is not unlimited, as the Appeals Court of Massachusetts recently confirmed in Beaudoin v. Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. The case involved a law student who was disenrolled from the school for not
In Sowa v. Mercedes-Benz Grp. AG and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, purchasers of certain Mercedes Benz vehicles from 17 states brought a putative class action against the automaker alleging that certain vehicles contained a dangerous defect. Separate actions were consolidated in
In Tries v. Cricones, home buyers prevailed at trial on their claims against home developers and sellers. Plaintiffs sued because defendants’ failed to disclose that the buyers’ yard was contaminated by Japanese knotweed, large shards of glass, and metal