PIZZUTI FAMILY INC BOSTON, MA Business Information
Ciao and the Trustee dispatched their trial witnesses and investigated what happened in Lunetta. They then filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to the issues each party believed Lunetta resolved, or precluded further litigation over. The parties agreed as to two of Kobrin’s preclusion factors. They agreed there was a final judgment on the merits in Lunetta, and they agreed that Ciao and the Trustee are in privity with the Lunetta litigants for purposes of Kobrin by virtue of being the Lunetta litigants’ successors in title. See O’Donoghue v. Commonwealth, 93 Mass. It also was undisputed that neither the Lunetta Decision nor the Lunetta judgment specifically mentions the bollards in so many words, and none of the remaining Lunetta trial exhibits depict the bollards.
Anthony Tappe & Assocs., Inc., 48 Mass. Ct. 1 , 8 (brackets in original; citations omitted; quoting Saint Louis v. Baystate Med. Center, Inc., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 393 , 399 , and Mackintosh v. Chambers, 285 Mass. 594 , 596 ). "’What factual grouping constitutes a "transaction", and what groupings constitute a "series", are to be determined pragmatically.’ Whether the facts are related in origin or motivation and whether they form a convenient trial unit are among the considerations." Saint Louis, 30 Mass.
May their example of courage and sacrifice be our guide. To be strong and responsible in our lives as citizens of the world. Through honest daily actions, we honor them.
The undisputed evidence demonstrates that standard accounting practices require that litigation judgments or settlements may only be recognized as income in the year received. This fact is reinforced by Polaroid’s recognition of the entire $925 million settlement amount as 1991 income, notwithstanding that Polaroid undoubtedly would have benefited under the tax code had it been allowed to redistribute this settlement as proposed by Pizzuti. Needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Casetext.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.
All information found on this site has been obtained through fair use public contributions. We’ve done our best to craft a valuable and comprehensive product for the benefit of our world’s collective history, however we make no claims of 100% accuracy. If you wish to submit corrections or suggestions, please contact us.
Heacock, 402 Mass. at (citations omitted, quoting Foster v. Evans, 384 Mass. 687 , 696 n.10 ). But the doctrine "does not apply in circumstances where a party has neither the incentive, nor the opportunity, to raise the claim in earlier lawsuit." Longval v. Commissioner of Corrections, 448 Mass. 412 , 417 . This appeal arises out of a summary judgment granted on behalf of Polaroid Corporation ("Polaroid") dismissing a breach of contract action brought by a former employee, Donato F. Pizzuti ("Pizzuti").1We affirm. This appeal arises out of a summary judgment granted on behalf of Polaroid Corporation ("Polaroid") dismissing a breach of contract action brought by a former employee, Donato F. Pizzuti ("Pizzuti").1 We affirm. Copyright 2022, Created in the USAGeneral Disclaimer – This is a private sector project developed by Crafted Knowledge. Although we enter into collaborative associations with many supporting organizations, this site is not owned or operated by any Government body.
Clustrmaps.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Having concluded that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars Ciao’s claims against the Trustee, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Trustee Pizzuti, and against Ciao, on Ciao’s claims against the Trustee. (The Court thus need not reach the Trustee’s alternative argument that he has extinguished Ciao’s easement rights by adverse possession.) Ciao nonetheless is entitled to a default judgment against Rabia’s, Inc. and Loretta Giuffre. This is so even though the claimant is prepared in a second action to present different evidence or legal theories to support his claim, or seeks different remedies. The doctrine is a ramification of the policy considerations that underlie the rule against splitting a cause of action, and is "based on the idea that the party to be precluded has the incentive and opportunity to litigate the matter fully in the first lawsuit." The Retirement Plan is a contribution plan as defined in § 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1002, and is thus subject to construction pursuant to federal common law.
He term "net profit" for any Plan Year shall mean the total on a consolidated basis of the net earnings of for such year , as computed by [Polaroid’s] accountants in accordance with standard accounting practices … [Polaroid’s] determination of such net profits shall be conclusive for all purposes under the Plan. Ciao claims that the bollards interfere with Ciao’s rights to use North Hanover Court. Ciao also alleges that the Giuffres, the owners of a property at 73 Salem Street that abuts North Hanover Court, have leased that property to Rabia’s, the operator of a restaurant. Ciao claims that Rabia’s and/or the Giuffres erected a gate on North Hanover Court that, like the bollards, interferes with Ciao’s use of North Hanover Court. After it filed suit, Ciao suggested that Frank Giuffre had died, leaving Loretta as the sole owner of the Giuffre property.
Fun Looks Completed with Trendy Hair Clips
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 110, 109 S. In construing ERISA-governed plans, we apply "common-sense canons of contract interpretation." Wickman v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co., 908 F.2d 1077, 1084 (1st Cir.) (quoting Burnham v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 873 F.2d 486, 489 (1st Cir. 1989)), cert. Although the Bonus Plan is governed by Massachusetts law, the standard of interpretation is similar, requiring the court to give nonambiguous terms their usual and ordinary meaning. Ober v. National Casualty Co., 318 Mass. 27, 30, 60 N.E.2d 90, 91 .
- The doctrine is a ramification of the policy considerations that underlie the rule against splitting a cause of action, and is "based on the idea that the party to be precluded has the incentive and opportunity to litigate the matter fully in the first lawsuit."
- There is a worthy goal to place a face and some life story to these names.
- All information found on this site has been obtained through fair use public contributions.
- This collection from Spain’s Manuel Mon takes play seriously.
- The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
The Court thus allowed the parties to conduct additional discovery into whether the bollards existed at the time of Lunetta. The Court noted earlier that the Lunetta Decision and judgment do not mention the bollards in so many words. That doesn’t dictate whether there is an "identity" of the "causes of action" in Lunetta and in this case for purposes of claim preclusion.
D PIZZUTI LLC – NAPLES
Ct. at 399, quoting Restatement of Judgments § 24 . But once the court deems claims to be identical, claim preclusion extends to "all matters that were or should have been adjudicated in the action." Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21 , 23 . See also Baby Furniture Warehouse Store, Inc. v. Muebles D&F Ltée, 75 Mass. At the close of further discovery, the Court held a second pretrial conference. By that time, the parties agreed that the bollards existed at the time of Lunetta.