O  T  H  E  R      D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N  S  :

Bradston Assoc., LLC v. Cabral, 21 Mass. L. Rep. 377, 2006 Mass. Super. LEXIS 400
(Sept. 11, 2006) (van Gestel, J.).

In Bradston, the Court issued another narrowly applicable decision regarding M.G.L. ch. 262, § 1, which affects the enforceability of contracts with the City Boston involving $10,000 or more. The City of Boston controls the Suffolk

Ten Residents of Boston v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 21 Mass. L. Rep. 324,
2006 Mass. Super. LEXIS 390 (August 2, 2006) (Gants, J.).

The Ten Residents decision will have little impact on the professional lives of most litigators in the Business Litigation Session, because the opinion addresses narrow issues under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”). The decision may, on the other hand, have a big impact on the personal lives of Boston-based litigators, because it addresses life and death questions.

In Ten Residents, plaintiffs challenged the approval of a “BSL-4” laboratory for inclusion in a project to open the National Emerging Infectious Disease and Bio-Containment Laboratory in BioSquare Research Park in the South End of Boston. In a BSL-4 lab, scientists conduct research “on the most dangerous disease-causing organisms and toxins known to mankind, including, but not limited to the Ebola virus, smallpox, anthrax and the Botulinum toxin.”

The focus of this opinion was the plaintiffs’ contention that the Secretary of Environmental Affairs (“Secretary”) abused her discretion in approving an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that

failed to consider the consequences of a “worst case scenario” occurring at the laboratory. The EIR becomes part of the basis for other government agencies to decide whether to approve the project.

The Court concluded that the EIR was fatally deficient because it considered only a “worst case scenario” involving an air-borne pathogen and not a contagious disease. The report further failed to consider the impact of a different location on the magnitude of the risk.

“[T]he Final EIR fails to answer two questions that virtually anyone learning of the proposed Biolab reasonably would ask: i. What is the worst that could happen if a laboratory worker were infected with a contagious pathogen he was studying? ii. Would the impact be significantly less if the Biolab were located outside of a city?”

Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the Court concluded that the Secretary lacked a rational basis to certify the EIR. It vacated the certification and stayed any agency action based upon the EIR until an adequate one was issued.

Targus Group Int’l, Inc. v. Sherman, 21 Mass. L. Rep. 217, 2006 Mass. LEXIS 334
(July 24, 2006) (van Gestel, J.).

After a full day mediation with a prominent mediator, the parties reached an Agreement in Principle (“Agreement”), which the mediator drafted and initialed. Representatives of each party signed the Agreement, and the parties’ counsel also endorsed it as “APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT.” Nevertheless, in the coming months negotiations broke down as the parties worked on drafting the final settlement papers.

The Court entered summary judgment enforcing the Agreement. It held that the Agreement contained all of the material terms of the deal, and that there was no indication that it was subject to further negotiation. “[A] full day of mediation, capped off by signing a document which memorialized the agreement of the parties, signifies that there has been a meeting of the minds.”