We recently represented the owner of a common-law trademark in connection with claims of infringement asserted by the owner of federally-registered mark.
We recently represented a physician in a federal court litigation against a group medical practice for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
We represent an attorney in an action against the Narragansett Indian Tribe. The plaintiff provided services to the Tribe over a period of eight years under the terms of two engagement agreements. In a motion to dismiss, the Tribe argued that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Tribe enjoyed sovereign immunity. The district court rejected the Tribe’s contention finding that it had waived its immunity for the purposes of any dispute with the plaintiff respecting his services. The Tribe’s motion for reconsideration and its interlocutory appeal to the First Circuit were rejected. The case was later referred for mediation before a federal magistrate judge where it was settled.
We represented a neighborhood organization that had assumed responsibility for remediating hazardous waste in the soil of more than one hundred residential properties. In connection with that work, the neighborhood was sued by one of its remediation contractors on a theory of unjust enrichment, among others. The contractor claimed that it should be compensated for removing contaminated soil in excess of the quantity contemplated at the outset of the project. The Superior Court of Rhode Island granted partial summary judgment in favor of the neighborhood organization holding that the contractor could not recover for unjust enrichment in the face of a fixed-price agreement. Following the neighborhood’s success with partial summary judgment, the case was settled.
We represented the former owner of a hazardous waste site in connection with an ongoing effort of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management to force the former owner and other potentially responsible parties to accept responsibility for response costs at the site in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and its state-law counterpart.
We represented a precast-concrete manufacturer in connection with the multi-count complaint of a product-purchaser alleging manufacturing defects. The purchaser’s central contention was that the products developed alkali-silica reaction as a consequence of the concrete-mix design selected by the parties. A three-member panel of the American Arbitration Association was selected to hear the case. After extensive discovery and the exchange of expert reports, the case was settled shortly prior to the start of evidentiary hearings.
We represented a marine contractor in connection with claims arising from construction of a marina expansion and improvements on Block Island. The owner declined to meet its contract obligations, contending that several components of the work had not been performed in a workmanlike manner. The case was tried before a single arbitrator under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. In the end, the arbitrator issued an initial award decidedly in favor of the marine contractor as to the merits of the controversy, followed by a supplemental award requiring the owner to pay the contractor’s attorneys’ fees and expenses.
We served as counsel to the Chief Operating Officer of a Massachusetts-based, non-profit organization who had been summarily suspended based on charges of sexual harassment made by a female department head. After investigation, the case was presented to the organization’s board of directors which voted to reinstate the COO.
We provided counsel to a former Rhode Island Secretary of State in litigation instituted by the then Attorney General of the State to prevent a casino-gambling referendum from appearing on the November 2004 statewide ballot.
We defended a northeastern highway and bridge contractor in connection with a $4 million fraud and breach of contract claim arising out of the sale of the contractor’s former plant and adjacent land. On the eve of trial, the case was settled.
We served as counsel to the owner of a thirty-acre landfill in a challenge to RIDEM’s decision not to renew the owner’s operating license. After lengthy administrative hearings, RIDEM’s decision was affirmed. In an appeal to the Rhode Island Superior Court, however, the administrative decision was reversed on the ground that RIDEM exceeded its regulatory authority. The Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected RIDEM’s appeal, affirmed the decision of the Superior Court, and reinstated the owner’s license.
We represented a partner in a Providence law firm in connection with an effort by the United States Trustee to hold the partner in civil contempt for participation as counsel in the sale of real estate in alleged violation of the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Before trial, the contempt claim was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement.
We represented a publicly-traded drug distributor in connection with an effort grounded in the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to forestall a tender offer by a management group. The District Court issued an injunction against the offeror permitting the company to entertain the offers of third-party suitors. In the end, the shareholders approved one such suitor and realized value greater than that offered by the management group.
We provided counsel to a Providence hospital in connection with the acquisition of certain adjacent municipal land and buildings. The hospital intervened in an action challenging the city’s right to sell the property. The trial court sustained the sale to the hospital. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
We served as counsel to a northeastern bank in a challenge to the prepayment-penalty provisions of the bank’s loan agreement with a multi-state manufacturing firm. The trial court rejected the borrower’s challenge. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed. The case established the legitimacy of prepayment penalty clauses in commercial loans governed by Rhode Island law.
We represented Rhode Island’s public transit authority in a federal class action under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The plaintiff class sought to require the authority to limit its acquisition of new buses to wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Such a requirement would have increased acquisition costs substantially with no evidence to suggest that wheelchair-confined persons would increase their limited use of fixed-route buses. The District Court granted the relief sought. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed, holding that federal law did not require the affirmative action inherent in the District Court’s judgment.
We are available to act as mediators and arbitrators for cases within our areas of expertise.
Penobscot Bay from Beech Hill, Rockport