This update contains the responses of lawyers for Lloyd Jennings and J. Bradford Brooks.
A state Appeals Court today upheld an earlier ruling that a Haverhill cannabis retailer’s suit against two opponents is valid since the foes went to lengths that “fell outside any acceptable boundary.”
Wednesday’s decision means Caroline Pineau, owner of Haverhill Stem, may continue her suit against Lloyd Jennings and J. Bradford Brooks. Lawyers for Jennings and Brooks told WHAV in an email that they are considering an appeal to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court because of, among other things, “free speech violations.”
The original action, filed almost two years ago, charges the men “engaged in a pattern and practice of threatening, extorting, intimidating and/or suing a business neighbor and applicant for their own financial gain.” In short, Pineau argued the men opposed her business as a means of coercing her to pay them a minimum of $30,000 for construction of a rear deck predating Pineau’s building ownership.
“We’re very pleased that the appeals court agreed with Judge Deakin that the defendants’ actions went beyond any acceptable boundaries. Stem has been a strong new source of tax revenue for the city of Haverhill and has been a positive downtown presence. We look forward to the coming trial and we’re confident we will prevail,” Pineau said in a statement.
Jennings and Brooks had countered Pineau was trying to deprive them of their rights to oppose in Land Court the store’s opening. If true, such an action is not allowed under a law known as anti-SLAPP (Strategic litigation against public participation).
Attorneys Scott A. Schlager of Pierce Atwood and Alvin S. Nathanson of Nathanson & Goldberg, said, “Today’s Appeals Court decision is unprecedented and deeply troubling in so far as it hampers settlement negotiations. Restricting what one can say or do during settlement talks discourages compromise and could spawn further litigation.”
They added, “This judicially imposed restraint violates the free speech rights of our clients and could open the floodgates to specious litigation designed to punish those speaking up for their beliefs.”
Superior Court Judge David A. Deakin previously ruled against Jennings and Brooks, writing, Pineau “alleged, not implausibly, that the defendants engaged in a pressure campaign to coerce Pineau to pay them.”
According to the decision issued Wednesday by Chief Justice Mark V. Green, and Associate Justices C. Jeffrey Kinder and John Englander, “While we acknowledge that there is room for ‘rough and tumble’ in business negotiations, and that such negotiations could occur in relation to legitimate petitioning activity, the repeated threats alleged here, designed to coerce payment—including threats that portended economic ruin without basis—fell outside any acceptable boundary.”
No trial date for has yet been set.
-Earlier-
A state Appeals Court today upheld an earlier ruling that a Haverhill cannabis retailer’s suit against two opponents is valid since the foes went to lengths that “fell outside any acceptable boundary.”
Wednesday’s decision means Caroline Pineau, owner of Haverhill Stem, may continue her suit against Lloyd Jennings and J. Bradford Brooks. The action, filed almost two years ago, charges the men “engaged in a pattern and practice of threatening, extorting, intimidating and/or suing a business neighbor and applicant for their own financial gain.” In short, Pineau argued the men opposed her business as a means of coercing her to pay them a minimum of $30,000 for construction of a rear deck predating Pineau’s building ownership.
“We’re very pleased that the appeals court agreed with Judge Deakin that the defendants’ actions went beyond any acceptable boundaries. Stem has been a strong new source of tax revenue for the city of Haverhill and has been a positive downtown presence. We look forward to the coming trial and we’re confident we will prevail,” Pineau said in a statement.
Jennings and Brooks had countered Pineau was trying to deprive them of their rights to oppose in Land Court the store’s opening. If true, such an action is not allowed under a law known as anti-SLAPP (Strategic litigation against public participation).
Superior Court Judge David A. Deakin previously ruled against Jennings and Brooks, writing, Pineau “alleged, not implausibly, that the defendants engaged in a pressure campaign to coerce Pineau to pay them.”
According to the decision issued Wednesday by Chief Justice Mark V. Green, and Associate Justices C. Jeffrey Kinder and John Englander, “While we acknowledge that there is room for ‘rough and tumble’ in business negotiations, and that such negotiations could occur in relation to legitimate petitioning activity, the repeated threats alleged here, designed to coerce payment—including threats that portended economic ruin without basis—fell outside any acceptable boundary.”
No trial date has yet been set.