Hanney's Answer and Demand for Jury Trial PDF

Sorry for the poor quality copy - it is a PDF scan. Email me if you need a cleaner copy!



 ALEXANDER & FEMINO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE SCHOOLSTREET
BEVERLY, MA 01915
(978) 921-1990
Ii
II
II
I
II ESSEX, SS,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-189-B
TOWN OF IPSWICH, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
~ ))
ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT CORP., )
AND IPSWICH RE HOLDINGS LLC, )
)
Defendants )
ANSWER AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Now come the Defendants, ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT CORP. and
IPSWICH HOLDINGS LLC and make answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint as follows:
Answering the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, the Defendants say:
1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1are admitted.
2. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 are admitted.
3. The allegations contained in paragraph 3 are admitted
4. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 4
5. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 5.
6. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 6.
7. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 7.
8, Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 8.
_J
.1
I
:XANDER & FEMINO I
,TTORNEYS AT LAW I
NE SCHOOL STREET
'EVERLY. MA 01915
(978) 921-1990
II
I
Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 9.
Stating further the RFP speaks for itself.
10. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 10.
11. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 11.
12. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 12.
I
I
II
I
.1
III 13. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 13.
14. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 14.
15. The allegations contained in para~aph 15 are admitted. Stating further the EMC
proposal speaks for itself.
16. The allegations contained in paragraph 16 are admitted. Stating further the EMC
proposal speaks for itself.
17. The allegations contained in paragraph 17 are admitted. Stating further the EMC
proposal speaks for itself.
18. The allegations contained in paragraph 18 are admitted. Stating further the EMC
proposal speaks for itself.
19, The allegations contained in paragraph 19 are admitted. Stating further the EMC
proposal speaks for itself.
20. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 20.
21. The allegations contained in paragraph 21 are admitted. Stating further the EMC
proposal speaks for itself.
22. Without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 22 ..
23. The allegations contain d in paragraph 23 are admitted.

EXANDER & FEMINO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
)NE SCHOOL STREET
BEVERLY. WoA01915
(978) 921-1990
Ii
II II II
I
Ii :::
44.
I 45.
The allegations contained in paragraph 42 are admitted.
The allegations contained in paragraph 43 are admitted.
The allegations contained in paragraph 44 are admitted.
The allegations contained in paragraph 45 are admitted.
46. The allegations contained in paragraph 46 are admitted.
47. The allegations contained in paragraph 47 are admitted.
48. The allegations contained in paragraph 48 are admitted.
49. Without sufficient information to ei,ther admit or deny the allegations contained in
paragraph 49 ..
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
50. The Defendants repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 50 of their Answer.
51. The allegations contained in paragraph 51 are denied.
52. a. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 a. are denied.
b. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 b. are denied.
c. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 c. are denied.
d.. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 d. are denied.
e. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 e. are denied.
f. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 f are denied.
g. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 g. are denied.
V/HEREFORE, the Defendants ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT CORP.
and IPSWICH RE HOLDINGS LLC demand that the Plaintiffs Complaint be
dismissed with costs and atto eys' fees to Defendants.
I
II
II
I ::. I
, .
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF PRESENTATION RESTRICTION (c. 184, §§31-33)
The Defendants repeat and reallege paragraphs 51-53 of their Answer.
The allegations contained in paragraph 54 are denied.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT CORP.
and IPSWICHRE HOLDINGS LLC demand that the Plaintiff's Complaint be
dismissed with costs and attorneys' fees to Defendants.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The Defendants ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT CORP. and
IPSWICH RE HOLDINGS LLC assert the following affirmative defenses:
1. The Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
2. The Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of frauds.
3. The Plaintiff is estopped from recovery against the Defendants.
4. The Plaintiff is guilty of laches and cannot recover against the Defendants.
5. The Plaintiff is guilty of unclean hands and cannot recover against the Defendants.
6. The claims of the Plaintiff have been waived.
7. Each count of the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted because each fails to set forth facts which constitute all of the elements of a
prime facie case.
I 8. The Plaintiff's claims are frivolous and in violation ofG.L. Chapter 231 Section 6F.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT CORP.
ALEXANDER & FEMINO and IPSWICH RE HOLDINGS LLC demand that the Plaintiff's Complaint be
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE SCHOOL STREET dismissed with costs and attorney's fees to Defendants.
BEVERLY, MA 0191S
(978) 921-1990
DEFENDANTS ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT CORP. and IPSWICH
II RE HOLDINGS LLC DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES. DEFENDANTS
ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT CORP. AND IPSWICH RE HOLDINGS LLC
RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SERVE ADDITIONAL DEFENSES, AFFIRlviATIVE
DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS AS THEY BECOME APPARENT.
Respectfully submitted,
Entertainment Management Corp. and
Ipswich RE Holdings LLC,
By their attorney,
(/J »: ' .. '--",~ ':--:---~\:.r .~:-' .--------- t nard F. Femmo
BBO #16268)
Alexander & Femino
One School Street
Beverly, MA 01915
(978) 921-1990
I hereby Gel1ify that a true copy of the above
document was served upon (each party appeanng
pro 58 and) the attorney of re~ord for each (other)
partybymai,(~)on.3' l'i ""}
t, . / ,
1\
II
ALEXANDER & FEMINO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE SCHOOL STREET
BEVERLY, MA 01915
(978) 921-1990 \
II
\1
.--~~-----------~
ALEXANDER & FEMINO
ArrOR.NEYS AT LAw
ONE SCHOOL STREET
BEVERLY, M.A5SACHUSl:.Tf501915
LEONARD F. FEIl'ilNO
THOMAS J. ALEXANDER
TELEPHONE (978) 921-1990
FAX (978) 921-4553
LFF@ALEXANDERFEMINO.NET
TERALD A. PARISELU\
March 6, 2013
Civil Clerk's Office
Salem Superior Court
56 Federal Street
Salem;MA 01970
RE: Town of Ipswich, Plaintiffv. Entertainment Management Corp., et al.,
Defendant
Civil Action No. 13-189B
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed herewith please find an Answer and Demand for Jury Trial to be filed in
the above-mentioned matter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
~
e y . ly yours, .~?it--- fG "onard F, Femino
LFF/gS'N
Enc.
Cc: Bill Hanney
George A. Hall, Jr., Esquire
r-------------------------------

Hanney demands jury trial

Hanney's attorney has filed an Answer to the Town's Complaint. I uploaded it to the BLOG as a POST. It is a list of admissions, denials, affirmative claims, and a demand for a jury trial on all counts. 

Meanwhile, if anyone is following this case, they can detect when either party has made a filing by setting up an account and then monitoring the on-line docket website for new filings at:

http://www.ma-trialcourts.org/tcic/welcome.jsp

then search for Docket #2013189. you don't get the whole document, just notification of what had been filed, then someone has to go to Newburyport Superior Court to review and copy as much of the detail as they wish, $1 per page.

If anything important appears to be happening in the records I will try to get copies.

Detailed update legal maneuvers 3/5/13

Detailed update March 5 2013

The disposition of the Old Town Hall is a bit confusing at the moment but I can give you the big picture. Most of what has been said in previous posts is correct, except dates, which are rather confusing. FYI the Town is represented by Town Counsel George Hall Jr.

Mr. Hanney (aka Entertainment Management Corp and Ipswich RE Holdings LLC) was served a summons on 2/14/13 to respond to a Complaint that was filed by the Town of Ipswich at the Newburyport Superior Court on 2/5/13. The Complaint is known as Civil Action docket 2013-189 (officially ESCV2013 - 189 - B). It requires Mr. Hanney to respond to the Complaint within 20 days of service not counting the day of service. The BOS had different dates so I have to confirm which is correct.

The Complaint addresses the terms and conditions in the Deed (to use the building for entertainment and retail purposes etc) and the preservation restrictions set up by the Ipswich Historical Commission, also part of the Deed. These restrictions have to do with what is allowed and not allowed in terms of changes to be made to the building, as well as requirements for preservation. 

You will find the preservation restrictions on 13 pages of the Deed on the right hand side column of this BLOG under the section for reference material. (I apologize in advance for the formatting mess in that document, I cannot get the file to copy/paste properly… if you want the properly formatted document ask and I will try to forward it!) In this same list of reference materials you will see Mass General Laws Chapter 184 sections 31 to 33, which govern the preservation restrictions.

The BOS expressed the hope that this approach will ensure the building is properly preserved by Hanney as agreed upon in the Deed documents and specified restrictions. The BOS hopes that this action will also draw in Mr. Hanney to engage in meaningful interaction with the Town to resolve all outstanding issues.  

Based on what the BOS told me, in earlier POST's By the way, in previous POST's I reported incorrectly the dates of various legal requirements based on earlier BOS information that was not accurate. Yikes. I am still trying to nail down the correct dates and facts.

Now that I have seen the Court documents, I can confirm that the Complaint is dated 2/5/13. The summons was served 2/14/13. Also, the Court uses a time-line of legal stages called the Scheduling Order (SO) which ordains the deadlines for various events required to reach resolution. The latest final date for resolution is 11/27/14. That's 1 year and 9 months worst case. Those 21 months aren't going to help the old building very much... this is going to become a big problem, I predict.

The Town Counsel can expedite his stages in the SO that will speed it up, as this SO is a list of stage deadlines, not waiting times; each time either party acts earlier than the deadline, the process jumps ahead and revises the calendar.

At the 3/5/13 BOS Meeting I also asked the BOS in what manner they would monitor legal progress and was told that was done by "haunting" Counsel with regular contact and requests, but Counsel refuses to provide estimates of time lines and contingencies. Not so good. I plan to offer a suggestion for updates that I think will work, more on that later.

You can watch the video of the BOS meeting that led to this post 3/4/13 at http://ipswichma.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=355. Go to about 10 minutes and 15 seconds into the ICAM replay.