Chelmsford Group, LLC et al v. Smith
| Massachusetts District Court | |
| Judge: | Denise J Casper |
| Case #: | 1:21-cv-10522 |
| Nature of Suit | 190 Contract - Other Contract |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment |
| Case Filed: | Mar 26, 2021 |
| Terminated: | Nov 09, 2021 |
| Last checked: Thursday Sep 23, 2021 6:21 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
Scott Smith
270 Littleton Road #178
Chelmsford, MA 01824 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Chelmsford Group, LLC
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Newbury Management Company
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 05/07/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Monday, March 21, 2022 | ||
| 27 | 27
appeal
USCA Mandate
Tue 03/22 7:26 AM
MANDATE of USCA as to21 Notice of Appeal, filed by Newbury Management Company, Chelmsford Group, LLC. Appeal21 Terminated (Paine, Matthew) |
|
| 26 | 26
appeal
USCA Judgment
Tue 03/22 7:24 AM
USCA Judgment as to21 Notice of Appeal, filed by Newbury Management Company, Chelmsford Group, LLC (Paine, Matthew) |
|
| Monday, February 07, 2022 | ||
| 24 | 24
appeal
Transcript - Appeal
Thu 02/10 6:33 PM
Transcript of Motion Hearing held on June 30, 2021, before Judge Denise J. Casper. COA Case No. 21-1996 The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Debra Joyce at joycedebra@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 2/28/2022. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/10/2022. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2022. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
|
|
notice
Notice of Filing of Official Transcript
Thu 02/10 6:34 PM
NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at[LINK:http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm] (Coppola, Katelyn) |
||
| Friday, December 10, 2021 | ||
|
appeal
USCA Case Number
Fri 12/10 10:13 AM
USCA Case Number 21-1996 for21 Notice of Appeal, filed by Newbury Management Company, Chelmsford Group, LLC. (Paine, Matthew) |
||
| Thursday, December 09, 2021 | ||
| 22 | 22
appeal
Abbreviated Electronic Appeal Record Sent to USCA
Thu 12/09 3:15 PM
Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re21 Notice of Appeal. (Paine, Matthew) |
|
| 21 | 21
appeal
Notice of Appeal
Thu 12/09 1:12 PM
NOTICE OF APPEAL re 19 ELECTRONIC ORDER,20 ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Chelmsford Group, LLC, Newbury Management Company Filing fee: $ 505, receipt number AMADC-9090979 Fee Status: Not Exempt. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at[LINK:http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov] MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 12/29/2021. (Brown, Michael) Modified on 12/9/2021 to Correct Docket Text and Add CM/ECF Document Links to Orders Being Appealed as Counsel Failed to Follow the CM/ECF NextGen Prompts When Filing the Notice of Appeal (Paine, Matthew) |
|
| Tuesday, November 09, 2021 | ||
| 20 | 20
1
pgs
order
Order Dismissing Case
Tue 11/09 1:12 PM
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(Hourihan, Lisa) |
|
|
order
Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
Tue 11/09 1:04 PM
Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re:8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Chelmsford Group, LLC, and Newbury Management Company, (collectively, "Plaintiffs") have filed this lawsuit against Scott Smith ("Smith") seeking a declaratory judgment that its rent structure (Count I), or an alternative rent structure they now propose (Count II), complies with Massachusetts law. D. 1. Smith has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. D. 8. For the reasons stated below, the Court ALLOWS the motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), a defendant may move to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "[T]he party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court carries the burden of proving its existence." Murphy v. United States , 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Taber Partners, I v. Merit Builders, Inc. , 987 F.2d 57, 60 (1st Cir. 1993)). To determine if the burden has been met, the Court "take[s] as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiffs' complaints, scrutinize[s] them in the light most hospitable to the plaintiffs' theory of liability, and draw[s] all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiffs' favor." Fothergill v. United States , 566 F.3d 248, 251 (1st Cir. 2009). Smith is a tenant at Chelmsford Commons ("Commons") in Chelmsford, MA, a manufactured housing community operated and managed by Plaintiffs since 2011. D. 1 ¶¶ 5-8, 12, 30-31. The Commons has approximately 255 separate land lots, most of which are the same size, which Chelmsford Group leases to tenants. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. The Commons had in effect a Master Lease from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020, which dictated how Chelmsford Group could charge rent to tenants. Id. ¶¶ 13-15. The Master Lease allowed annual rent adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index and provided an escalation clause, which provided that new tenants of the Commons would be charged 10% more than the previous tenant on the same lot. Id. ¶ 15. As lots turned over, the 10% rent increase was applied to new tenants, creating a staggered rent structure among the Commons lots. Id. ¶ 21. Before the Master Lease was set to expire on December 31, 2020, Plaintiffs sent new occupancy agreements to each tenant at the Commons that offered three options: (1) a ten-year lease, (2) a five-year lease, or (3) a tenancy-at-will, all with a term beginning January 1, 2021. Id. ¶ 23. Tenants were offered the same rent they had been paying in 2020 under the Master Lease and no changes have since been made to the 2020 rent payments. Id. ¶¶ 24-26. The Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Act, Mass Gen. L. c. 140, § 32A ("Housing Act"), governs the operations of manufactured housing communities like the Commons, including how the operators of same charge rent to their tenants. Id. ¶ 11. On November 24, 2020, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Blake v. Hometown America Communities, Inc. , 486 Mass. 268 (2020), which interpreted how the Housing Act applied to rent structures in the context of another community. Id. ¶ 27. On January 8, 2021, Smith sent a Mass Gen. L. c. 93A demand letter to Plaintiffs asserting that, in light of the recent Blake decision, Plaintiffs' rent structure was unlawful under the Housing Act. Id. ¶¶ 30, 32-33. The letters demand that Plaintiffs alter their rent structure to charge uniform monthly rent and to reimburse Smith and all putative class members all overpaid rent. Id. ¶ 34. On March 26, 2021, Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit against Smith for declaratory relief and invoked this Court's diversity jurisdiction. D. 1. As of the filing of the complaint in this case, Smith had yet to commence a lawsuit against Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 36. On April 1, 2021, Smith filed a class action complaint in Middlesex Superior Court, which Plaintiffs removed to this Court. See Smith v. Chelmsford Group, LLC et al. , 21-cv-10654-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 1, 2021), D. 1. The Court stayed those proceedings pending resolution of this action. Id. , D. 15. Smith now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory relief for failure to allege an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. D. 8. The Court heard the parties on the pending motion and the Court took the matter under advisement. D. 17. As the party invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have the burden to establish that the minimum amount in controversy has been met. See CE Design Ltd. v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co. , 755 F.3d 39, 43 (1st Cir. 2014); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where, as here, an action seeks declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation. Richard C. Young & Co. v. Leventhal , 389 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Comm'n , 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)). "[O]nce the opposing party has questioned the amount [alleged], the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the jurisdictional amount." Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech LLC , 665 F.3d 38, 42 (1st Cir. 2012) (citations and quotations omitted). A party may satisfy "[t]his burden... by amending pleadings or submitting affidavits." Id. Here, Smith challenges whether the amount in controversy could exceed $75,000. See D. 9 at 4-5 (calculating potential damages). Assuming the Court found for Smith, the only defendant named here, Plaintiffs' maximum liability would not exceed $16,450.97. Id. at 5. Aside from an unspecified allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, however, the complaint is silent as to the value of the object of the litigation. See D. 1 ¶ 3; Coventry Sewage Assocs. v. Dworkin Realty Co. , 71 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1995) (noting general rule that amount in controversy determined from face of complaint). Plaintiffs have not sought to amend their complaint or filed affidavits in this record regarding same. To the extent Plaintiffs rely upon the alleged overcharge asserted by Smith in his Chapter 93A demand letter (for him, $52.88 per month), multiplied for a class action, see D. 1-5; D. 12 at 9, such complaint had not yet been filed when Plaintiffs initiated this case. See D. 1-5; Stewart v. Tupperware Corp. , 356 F.3d 335, 338 (1st Cir. 2004) (noting that when determining amount in controversy, courts "must look at the circumstances at the time the complaint is filed"); Richards v. Arteva Specialties S.A.R.L. , 66 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 733 (2006) (explaining that in looking at Chapter 93A demand letter, courts consider only individual claimant's injury, not that of uncertified class). In other words, Plaintiffs have not brought forth evidence that the value of this dispute in this case with Smith as the sole defendant exceeds $75,000. See O'Connor & Drew, P.C. v. Hickey , No. 09-cv-10711-NG, 2009 WL 10694414, at *3 n.1 (D. Mass. Dec. 11, 2009) (citing Hyatt Int'l Corp. v. Coco , 302 F.3d 707, 71112 (7th Cir. 2002) (explaining that "in a declaratory judgment action, [the plaintiff] must allege it has suffered injury" at the time it filed its declaratory action and noting that declaratory judgments are "not a tactical device whereby a party who would be a defendant in a coercive action may choose to be a plaintiff by winning the proverbial race to the courthouse"). As to Smith's putative class action, currently stayed, 21-cv-10654-DJC, Plaintiffs' counsel indicated at the motion hearing that Plaintiffs would "certainly raise a declaratory judgment count in [a] counterclaim in the class action suit" upon dismissal. In a subsequent letter to the Court, Plaintiffs asserted that their ability to bring a counterclaim under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act would be "foreclosed [] or substantially delayed" if Smith sought to remand the action to Middlesex Superior Court. D. 18. Even assuming that a motion for remand in the class action case would succeed, it is not clear why Plaintiffs would be foreclosed from asserting a counterclaim for declaratory judgment even under state law or seeking to dismiss on the legal grounds they assert in their request for declaratory relief. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss, D. 8, is ALLOWED. (Hourihan, Lisa) |
||
| Thursday, July 01, 2021 | ||
| 18 | 18
misc
Letter/request - non-motion
Thu 07/01 12:19 PM
Letter/request (non-motion) from Michael Brown, Esq. . (Brown, Michael) |
|
| Wednesday, June 30, 2021 | ||
| 17 | 17
minutes
Motion Hearing Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
Wed 06/30 2:23 PM
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Denise J. Casper: Motion Hearing held on 6/30/2021 re8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Scott Smith by video conference. Court grants15 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Arguments. Court takes under advisement8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Court Reporter: Debra Joyce at joycedebra@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Michael Brown and Joseph Aviv for the plaintiffs. Brian O'Donnell for the defendant.) (Hourihan, Lisa) |
|
| 16 | 16
respm
Opposition to Motion
Wed 06/30 9:45 AM
Opposition re15 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by Chelmsford Group, LLC, Newbury Management Company. (Brown, Michael) |
|
| Wednesday, June 16, 2021 | ||
| 15 | 15
motion
Leave to File Document
Wed 06/16 11:26 AM
MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion to Dismiss by Scott Smith.(O'Donnell, Brian) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit Attachment A - Anticipated Reply
|
||
| Wednesday, May 12, 2021 | ||
| 14 | 14
2
pgs
order
Order
Wed 05/12 1:35 PM
Judge Denise J. Casper: Standing Order Regarding Appearance of Counsel Via Telephone or Videoconference(Hourihan, Lisa) |
|
| 13 | 13
notice
Notice Setting or Resetting Hearing on Motion
Wed 05/12 1:34 PM
ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction : This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the session's courtroom deputy as soon as possible. Access to the hearing will be made available to the media and public. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: [LINK:https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html] . For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the Court's general orders and public notices available on [LINK:www.mad.uscourts.gov] or contact media@mad.uscourts.gov . Motion Hearing set for 6/30/2021 02:00 PM in Remote Proceeding : Boston before Judge Denise J. Casper. (Hourihan, Lisa) |
|
| Tuesday, May 11, 2021 | ||
| 12 | 12
respm
Opposition to Motion
Tue 05/11 2:18 PM
Opposition re8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Chelmsford Group, LLC, Newbury Management Company. (Brown, Michael) |
|
| Friday, May 07, 2021 | ||
| 11 | 11
order
Order on Motion for Leave to Appear
Fri 05/07 12:11 PM
Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting7 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Shannon C. Duggan. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Currie, Haley) |
|
| 10 | 10
order
Order on Motion for Leave to Appear
Fri 05/07 12:08 PM
Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Joseph Aviv. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Currie, Haley) |
|
| Thursday, April 29, 2021 | ||
| 9 | 9
8
pgs
respm
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Thu 04/29 12:42 PM
MEMORANDUM in Support re8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Scott Smith. (O'Donnell, Brian) |
|
| 8 | 8
motion
Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
Thu 04/29 12:40 PM
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Scott Smith.(O'Donnell, Brian) |
|
| Friday, April 23, 2021 | ||
| 7 | 7
motion
Appear Pro Hac Vice
Fri 04/23 10:56 AM
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Shannon C. Duggan Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101-8741490 by Chelmsford Group, LLC, Newbury Management Company.(Smith, Kaitlin) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit Certification of Shannon C. Duggan, Esq.
|
||
| 6 | 6
motion
Appear Pro Hac Vice
Fri 04/23 10:54 AM
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Joseph Aviv Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101-8741476 by Chelmsford Group, LLC, Newbury Management Company.(Smith, Kaitlin) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit Certification of Joseph Aviv, Esq.
|
||
| Monday, April 12, 2021 | ||
| 5 | 5
service
Summons Returned Executed
Mon 04/12 11:24 AM
SUMMONS Returned Executed Scott Smith served on 4/8/2021, answer due 4/29/2021. (Smith, Kaitlin) |
|
| Tuesday, March 30, 2021 | ||
| 4 | 4
notice
Notice of Appearance
Tue 03/30 9:41 AM
NOTICE of Appearance by Kaitlin K. Smith on behalf of Chelmsford Group, LLC, Newbury Management Company (Smith, Kaitlin) |
|
| Friday, March 26, 2021 | ||
| 3 | 3
service
Summons Issued
Fri 03/26 4:57 PM
Summons Issued as to Scott Smith. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Currie, Haley) |
|
| 2 | 2
notice
Notice of Case Assignment
Fri 03/26 4:54 PM
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Denise J. Casper assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell. (adminn, ) |
|
| 1 | 1
cmp
Complaint
Fri 03/26 4:01 PM
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF against Scott Smith Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number 0101-8699972 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Chelmsford Group, LLC, Newbury Management Company.(Brown, Michael) |
|
|
Att: 1
Civil Cover Sheet Cover Sheet & Category Form,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit A,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit B,
|
||
|
Att: 4
Exhibit C,
|
||
|
Att: 5
Exhibit D,
|
||
|
Att: 6
Exhibit E,
|
||
|
Att: 7
Exhibit F
|
||