Preview
Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM
Superior Court - Plymouth
Docket Number
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PLYMOUTH, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
DOCKET NO. 24 CV
Conn GOUIT
SUPEHIORauna trALDEPT.OF UassacHURET Ss
CARNEY, GAUDET & CARNEY, LLC PUrsQUr Coun OF Th 2 TRIAL COURT
Plaintiff
Vv.
JUN 26 2024
EDMUND J. MCLELLAND
Defendant Gat
unt
PLAINTIFF CREDITOR’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT TRANSFER OR
ENCUMBRANCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S COLLECTION OF AUTOMOBILES
Now comes the Plaintiff, Carney, Gaudet, & Carney (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’), a
creditor of the Defendant and moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 65,
among other rules, to grant an order prohibiting the Defendants from transferring, conveying, or
encumbering his collection of automobiles, classic and expensive until further Order of this
Honorable Court. In support thereof, Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered
into a written fee agreement for legal services arising out of multiple criminal allegations against
Defendant Edmund McLelland- As a result of the hard work of the Plaintiff, the charges were
either dismissed or, after jury trial the Defendant Edmund McLelland was found not guilty. Asa
result, there remains an outstanding balance of $84,370.14 for legal services that is owed by the
Defendant, Edmund McLelland for these services. Rather than pay, the Defendant Edmund
McLelland offered a $50,000 lien on his house (held in trust) if the Plaintiff would represent him
on yet more criminal charges. Because the Defendant had not path to payment, the further
representation was declined. As a result, the Defendant (believed to be currently incarcerated)
was clear to say that he would fight over the debt. Thus, although the Defendant is well aware of
his outstanding balance in the amount of $84,370.14, the Defendant has stated in a text message
that he “will fight [the Plaintiff] every step of the way.”
The Defendant is ‘currently a party to divorce proceedings and claims that he is facing
financial and cash flow difficulties. The Plaintiff now seeks to prohibit the Defendant from
transferring, conveying, encumbering or otherwise inhibit the Defendant from transferring;
conveying or encumbering his collection of automobiles until further Order of this Honorable
Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM
‘Superior Court - Plymouth:
Docket Number
Court. In support thereof, Plaintiff submits the Affidavit of J.W. Carney, Jr., Esq. in support of
this Motion.
Facts (from the Affidavit of Jay Carney, Esq.)
The Plaintiff, Carney, Gaudet, & Carney, LLC was approached for legal representation
by the Defendant, Edmund J. McLelland (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Mr. McLelland”) when he
was facing several criminal charges for assault and battery, assault and battery on a family
household member, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and violation of an abuse
prevention order. The Plaintiff agreed to represent the Defendant Mr. McLelland in his then
pending charges as well as other that were sought during the time of the representation, under a
written fee agreement. (Written Fee Agreement annexed as exhibit “1” to the Affidavit of JW.
Carney, Jr., Esq.). During the course of the representation, subsequent criminal acts were alleged
by the prosecution to have been perpetrated by Defendant Mr. McLelland during the time of the
Plaintiff's representation. The additional allegations and/or charges being sought against
Defendant Mr. McLelland included attaching a false plate to conceal the identity of a motor
vehicle, and multiple violations of an abuse prevention orders. Plaintiff also assisted the
Defendant in seeking a criminal cross-complaint for forgery. of a check, uttering a false writing,
and larceny over $250 by false pretense. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with
representation from the moment he was retained and through the course of litigation. The
charges involving assault and battery, assault and battery on a family household member, assault
and battery with a dangerous weapon, and multiple violations of an abuse prevention order were
tried before a jury by Plaintiff as counsel for Defendant Mr. McLelland. As a result of the
Plaintiff's hard work in representing the Defendant, he was acquitted by the jury of the criminal
charges against him. Additionally, the allegation and attempt to obtain a criminal Complaint
concerning attaching false license plates was dismissed prior to arraignment as a result of
Plaintiffs filing a motion to dismiss and hard work.
The Plaintiff represented Defendant Mr. McLelland at several clerk magistrate’s hearings
during the span of the representation in which the Defendant was accused of multiple restraining
order violations and malicious damage to a motor vehicle. As a result of Plaintiff's advocacy,
several of these criminal complaints did not issue or were delayed. Shortly before the
Defendant’s trial for assault and battery, assault and battery on a family household member,
assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and several restraining order violations, the
Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM
Superior Court - Plymouth
Docket Number
Defendant was accused of intimidation of a witness and malicious destruction of property.
Plaintiff did not represent Defendant on these matters but continued to represent Defendant
through trial on the criminal cases charging assault and battery, assault battery on a family
household member, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and multiple restraining order
violations.
The Plaintiff provided Mr. McLelland with legal services beginning July 27, 2022 and
continued through June 30, 2023. The representation of Defendant Mr. Mclelland resulted in an
outstanding legal bill balance in the amount of $84,370.14. (Invoices annexed as exhibit “2” to
the Affidavit of J.W. Carney, Jr., Esq.). The Defendant voiced his intent to repay the entirety of
his invoice amounts, satisfaction with the representation, and even attempted to have the Plaintiff
represent him in addition but unrelated criminal charges. On or about June 3, 2024, the
Defendant conveyed his satisfaction with the Plaintiff's representation in his prior criminal cases
and then offered for a $50,000.00 lien to be placed on his marital home on the condition that
Plaintiff provide representation for these subsequent criminal charges that he was facing. There
was no clear path to pay the remaining balance nor was there a clear path to pay for the new legal
representation. As a result, the Plaintiff had to decline further representation.
The Plaintiff has spoken and communicated with Edmund McLelland on a number of
occasions. According to Defendant Mr. McLelland there is no dispute as to the amount he owes,
just that he is now upset that the Plaintiff will not represent him in his most recent criminal
matters. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with several demands for payment and kept the
Defendant up to date with invoices and amounts due. (See Invoices annexed hereto as Exhibit
“2”,
Defendant Mr. McLelland is currently a party to divorce proceedings at Norfolk County
Probate and Family Court, Docket No. NO22D0996DR. On or about May 28, 2024, Defendant
Mr. McLelland communicated that the amount due to the Plaintiff will be repaid once his divorce
proceedings are settled with Reach and Apply Defendant as Trustee of 161 Pond Street Realty
Trust, Lauren J, McLelland. Due to the divorce proceedings under Docket No. NO22D0996DR,
the Plaintiff has been made aware that a Special Master has been appointed to appraise and take
inventory of any and all items belonging to the parties.
According to Mr. McLelland and documents filed in his divorce, he owns a significant
array of expensive and classic vehicles. According to documents obtained by the Plaintiff, the
Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM
‘Superior Court - Plymouth
Docket Number
vehicles and boats under the Defendant’s ownership include but are not limited to a 2007
Mustang Shelby, 2007 Dodge Ram, 1987 Porsche 911 Turbo, 1998 Ducati Monster, 1969
Plymouth Barracuda, 2003 Mercedes, 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner, 1965 MGB, a 1987 Viking
Convertible Diesel-Powered Boat, and several other trucks and jet skis (Financial Statement
available upon request of this Court). Notwithstanding these expensive vehicles, after the
Plaintiff declined the Defendant Mr. McLelland’s request for further representation on the
additional legal charges, the Defendant then claimed that he is in the process of filing for
bankruptcy and admits that he is experiencing financial and cash flow difficulties. (See Message
annexed to the Affidavit of J.W. Carney, Jr., Esq. as Exhibit “3”).
The Defendant, Edmund J. McLelland is currently detained at the Norfolk County Jail
and House of Correction in Dedham, Massachusetts for an unrelated criminal matter. Although
the Defendant is well aware of his outstanding balance, due to his financial difficulties, when
requested to make payments for the legal services successfully rendered, the Defendant stated he
“will fight [the Plaintiff] every step of the way” (See Exhibit “3”). Despite having an outstanding
balance in the amount of $84,370.14, the Defendant’s only offer to pay was conditioned on
further representation (which the Plaintiff declined). If the Defendant were to transfer his assets
due to his divorce proceedings, he will have nothing from which the Plaintiff will be able to be
paid. The Plaintiff seeks to prohibit the Defendant from transferring the ownership of his
collection of classic vehicles and other automobiles or from transferring substantially all his
assets without first ensuring payment to the Plaintiff or until further Order of this Court. Plaintiff
knows of no other assets of the Defendant available to satisfy any judgment that might enter in
this matter.
Injunctions Generally
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, “a plaintiff, must show (1) a likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm will result from denial of the injunctions; and (3)
that, in light of the plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of irreparable harm to
the plaintiff outweighs the potential harm to the defendant in granting the injunction.” Tri-Nel
Management, Inc. v. Board of Health of Barnstable, 433 Mass 217, 219 (2001) (citing Packaging
Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass 609, 617 (1980)). When weighing those considerations,
the inquiry should not focus on determining the “raw amount of irreparable harm” each party
might suffer, “but rather the risk of such harm in light of the party’s chance of success on the
Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM
Superior Court - Plymouth
Docket Number
merits.” Id. The Frontier Group of Massachusetts, Inc. v. George Price, 98-0347 (Toomey,
Justice).
The Plaintiff has a Likelihood of Success in Recovering the Amount Owed By Defendant,
Edmund J. McLelland
In the case at bar, the Plaintiff has a likelihood of success in recovering the amounts
owed by the Defendant. According to the accounting of the Plaintiff, the Defendant owes
$84,370.14 for the legal services and representation provided to the Defendant for his criminal
cases. The Defendant Mr. McLelland has admitted owing this money but only took issue when
further representation was declined. Given the excellent results that were obtained for
Defendant, Mr. McLelland, he cannot take issue with the quality of the representation. The
Defendants might attempt to raise issue with this amount, according to the contemporaneous text
messages and communications, no dispute was taken with the amount that the Plaintiff is
demanding. When the Defendant initially retained the Plaintiff, he was made aware of the
retainer fee, billing rates, and of when Defendant should be expected to make payments for the
services rendered. After the services were rendered and the excellent results were achieved, the
Plaintiff made demands on the Defendant Mr. McLelland demands for payment. The Defendant
on various occasions voiced his intent to repay the entirety of his invoice amounts, has expressed
his satisfaction with the representation, and has even attempted to obtain representation from the
Plaintiff for a subsequent criminal matter. Therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute to the
amounts asserted by the Plaintiff and that Plaintiff has a likelihood of success in recovering the
amount owed by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff will be Irreparably Harmed without the Within ORDER
because the Defendant’s Assets May Be Transferred Due to His Divorce Proceedings
In the case at bar the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with legal services and
representation and is damaged in the amount of $84,370.14 by his nonpayment. Currently, the
Defendant’s known assets include his vast collection of classic vehicles, boats, and other
automobiles and his interest in the martial home. If the Plaintiff is not prohibited from
transferring the vehicles, the Defendant himself makes claim that there will be nothing at the end
of the litigation from which to collect from the Defendant Edmund J. McLelland because he is
threatening to file bankruptcy.
Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM
Superior Court - Plymouth
Docket Number
The Defendant is currently a party to divorce proceedings at Norfolk County Probate and
Family Court, Docket No. NO22D0996DR. Although the Defendant had communicated that he
wished to repay the Plaintiff, he told the Plaintiff that he would fight every step of the way
because the Plaintiff would not represent him in additional criminal proceedings. The Defendant
has also made claims that he is in the process of filing for bankruptcy and admits that he is
experiencing financial and cash flow difficulties. Currently, the vehicles and boats under the
Defendant’s ownership includes but is not limited to a 2007 Mustang Shelby, 2007 Dodge Ram,
1987 Porsche 911 Turbo, 1998 Ducati Monster, 1969 Plymouth Barracuda, 2003 Mercedes, 1969
Plymouth Roadrunner, 1965 MGB, a 1987 Viking Convertible Diesel-Powered Boat, and several
other trucks and jet skis which the Plaintiff seeks to prevent from being transferred.
In the case at bar, it is clear that the Defendant could easily transfer his known assets to
the prejudice of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is currently a party to divorce proceedings and
claims that he is facing financial and cash flow difficulties. The Plaintiff now seeks to prohibit
the Defendant from transferring, conveying, encumbering or otherwise inhibit the Defendant
from hiding his collection of automobiles, personal property and/or assets until further Order of
this Honorable Court. Should the Defendant Edmund J. McLelland seek to transfer his
ownership of his vast automobile collection, the Plaintiff will not be made whole by the
Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if there is no ORDER that the
Defendant not transfer his ownership of his automobile collection in order to avoid irreparable
harm.
The Balance of the Equities Way in Favor of the Plaintiff to Prohibit the Defendants from
Transferring his Assets
The balance of the equities in the case at bar weigh in favor of the Plaintiff because the
Plaintiff have provided exemplary legal services to the Defendant between July 27, 2022 and
June 30, 2023. The Plaintiff obtained exemplary results for the Defendant and is currently owed
the balance of $84,370.14. The Defendant’s known assets include his vast collection of classic
vehicles, boats, and jet skis. However, the Defendant is currently a party to divorce proceedings
at Norfolk County Probate and Family Court under Docket No. NO22D0996DR, and if the
Defendant were to transfer his assets due to his divorce proceedings, he will have nothing from
which the Plaintiff will be able to be paid except possibly the primary residence (which would
also be subject to a Bankruptcy Court ORDER). The Plaintiff now seeks to prohibit the
Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM
‘Superior Court Plymouth
Docket Number
Defendant from transferring the ownership of his collection of classic vehicles and other
automobiles or from transferring substantially all his assets without first ensuring payment to the
Plaintiff or until further Order of this Court.
In the case at bar, the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs for
prohibition of the Defendants transferring, conveying or encumbering his vast collection of
classic vehicles, boats, and other automobiles. First and foremost, the Defendant most likely
wants to retain the vehicles but might want to liquidate them in order to pay other bills. On
balance, the exemplary results that resulted form the Plaintiffs representation (not guilty verdicts
and dismissals), the balance of the equities weighs in favor of the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, in light of the fact that the Defendant has not paid the outstanding
balance, that he has not disputed the outstanding balance, and in light of the likelihood of success
that the Plaintiff has in this matter of recovering a judgment, the Plaintiff requests that this
Honorable Court enter a Preliminary Injunction which prohibits the Defendant from transferring,
conveying, encumbering or otherwise inhibit the Defendant from transferring, conveying or
encumbering the following personal property: 2007 Mustang Shelby, 2007 Dodge Ram, 1987
Porsche 911 Turbo, 1998 Ducati Monster, 1969 Plymouth Barracuda, 2003 Mercedes, 1969
Plymouth Roadrunner, 1965 MGB, a 1987 Viking Convertible Diesel-Powered Boat, and several
other trucks and jet skis, until further Order of this Honorable Court.
The Plaintiff,
CARNEY, GAUDET & CARNEY, LLC
By its attorney,
/S/ Carlo Cellai, Esq. June 25, 2024
Carlo Cellai, Esq. BBO No. 558651 Date
CELLAI LAW OFFICES, P.C.
150 Grossman Drive, Suite 201
Braintree, Massachusetts 02184
(617) 367-2199
Carlo@cellailaw.com
Preview
Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM Superior Court - Plymouth Docket Number COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS PLYMOUTH, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT DOCKET NO. 24 CV Conn GOUIT SUPEHIORauna trALDEPT.OF UassacHURET Ss CARNEY, GAUDET & CARNEY, LLC PUrsQUr Coun OF Th 2 TRIAL COURT Plaintiff Vv. JUN 26 2024 EDMUND J. MCLELLAND Defendant Gat unt PLAINTIFF CREDITOR’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT TRANSFER OR ENCUMBRANCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S COLLECTION OF AUTOMOBILES Now comes the Plaintiff, Carney, Gaudet, & Carney (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’), a creditor of the Defendant and moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 65, among other rules, to grant an order prohibiting the Defendants from transferring, conveying, or encumbering his collection of automobiles, classic and expensive until further Order of this Honorable Court. In support thereof, Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a written fee agreement for legal services arising out of multiple criminal allegations against Defendant Edmund McLelland- As a result of the hard work of the Plaintiff, the charges were either dismissed or, after jury trial the Defendant Edmund McLelland was found not guilty. Asa result, there remains an outstanding balance of $84,370.14 for legal services that is owed by the Defendant, Edmund McLelland for these services. Rather than pay, the Defendant Edmund McLelland offered a $50,000 lien on his house (held in trust) if the Plaintiff would represent him on yet more criminal charges. Because the Defendant had not path to payment, the further representation was declined. As a result, the Defendant (believed to be currently incarcerated) was clear to say that he would fight over the debt. Thus, although the Defendant is well aware of his outstanding balance in the amount of $84,370.14, the Defendant has stated in a text message that he “will fight [the Plaintiff] every step of the way.” The Defendant is ‘currently a party to divorce proceedings and claims that he is facing financial and cash flow difficulties. The Plaintiff now seeks to prohibit the Defendant from transferring, conveying, encumbering or otherwise inhibit the Defendant from transferring; conveying or encumbering his collection of automobiles until further Order of this Honorable Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM ‘Superior Court - Plymouth: Docket Number Court. In support thereof, Plaintiff submits the Affidavit of J.W. Carney, Jr., Esq. in support of this Motion. Facts (from the Affidavit of Jay Carney, Esq.) The Plaintiff, Carney, Gaudet, & Carney, LLC was approached for legal representation by the Defendant, Edmund J. McLelland (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Mr. McLelland”) when he was facing several criminal charges for assault and battery, assault and battery on a family household member, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and violation of an abuse prevention order. The Plaintiff agreed to represent the Defendant Mr. McLelland in his then pending charges as well as other that were sought during the time of the representation, under a written fee agreement. (Written Fee Agreement annexed as exhibit “1” to the Affidavit of JW. Carney, Jr., Esq.). During the course of the representation, subsequent criminal acts were alleged by the prosecution to have been perpetrated by Defendant Mr. McLelland during the time of the Plaintiff's representation. The additional allegations and/or charges being sought against Defendant Mr. McLelland included attaching a false plate to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle, and multiple violations of an abuse prevention orders. Plaintiff also assisted the Defendant in seeking a criminal cross-complaint for forgery. of a check, uttering a false writing, and larceny over $250 by false pretense. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with representation from the moment he was retained and through the course of litigation. The charges involving assault and battery, assault and battery on a family household member, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and multiple violations of an abuse prevention order were tried before a jury by Plaintiff as counsel for Defendant Mr. McLelland. As a result of the Plaintiff's hard work in representing the Defendant, he was acquitted by the jury of the criminal charges against him. Additionally, the allegation and attempt to obtain a criminal Complaint concerning attaching false license plates was dismissed prior to arraignment as a result of Plaintiffs filing a motion to dismiss and hard work. The Plaintiff represented Defendant Mr. McLelland at several clerk magistrate’s hearings during the span of the representation in which the Defendant was accused of multiple restraining order violations and malicious damage to a motor vehicle. As a result of Plaintiff's advocacy, several of these criminal complaints did not issue or were delayed. Shortly before the Defendant’s trial for assault and battery, assault and battery on a family household member, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and several restraining order violations, the Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM Superior Court - Plymouth Docket Number Defendant was accused of intimidation of a witness and malicious destruction of property. Plaintiff did not represent Defendant on these matters but continued to represent Defendant through trial on the criminal cases charging assault and battery, assault battery on a family household member, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and multiple restraining order violations. The Plaintiff provided Mr. McLelland with legal services beginning July 27, 2022 and continued through June 30, 2023. The representation of Defendant Mr. Mclelland resulted in an outstanding legal bill balance in the amount of $84,370.14. (Invoices annexed as exhibit “2” to the Affidavit of J.W. Carney, Jr., Esq.). The Defendant voiced his intent to repay the entirety of his invoice amounts, satisfaction with the representation, and even attempted to have the Plaintiff represent him in addition but unrelated criminal charges. On or about June 3, 2024, the Defendant conveyed his satisfaction with the Plaintiff's representation in his prior criminal cases and then offered for a $50,000.00 lien to be placed on his marital home on the condition that Plaintiff provide representation for these subsequent criminal charges that he was facing. There was no clear path to pay the remaining balance nor was there a clear path to pay for the new legal representation. As a result, the Plaintiff had to decline further representation. The Plaintiff has spoken and communicated with Edmund McLelland on a number of occasions. According to Defendant Mr. McLelland there is no dispute as to the amount he owes, just that he is now upset that the Plaintiff will not represent him in his most recent criminal matters. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with several demands for payment and kept the Defendant up to date with invoices and amounts due. (See Invoices annexed hereto as Exhibit “2”, Defendant Mr. McLelland is currently a party to divorce proceedings at Norfolk County Probate and Family Court, Docket No. NO22D0996DR. On or about May 28, 2024, Defendant Mr. McLelland communicated that the amount due to the Plaintiff will be repaid once his divorce proceedings are settled with Reach and Apply Defendant as Trustee of 161 Pond Street Realty Trust, Lauren J, McLelland. Due to the divorce proceedings under Docket No. NO22D0996DR, the Plaintiff has been made aware that a Special Master has been appointed to appraise and take inventory of any and all items belonging to the parties. According to Mr. McLelland and documents filed in his divorce, he owns a significant array of expensive and classic vehicles. According to documents obtained by the Plaintiff, the Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM ‘Superior Court - Plymouth Docket Number vehicles and boats under the Defendant’s ownership include but are not limited to a 2007 Mustang Shelby, 2007 Dodge Ram, 1987 Porsche 911 Turbo, 1998 Ducati Monster, 1969 Plymouth Barracuda, 2003 Mercedes, 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner, 1965 MGB, a 1987 Viking Convertible Diesel-Powered Boat, and several other trucks and jet skis (Financial Statement available upon request of this Court). Notwithstanding these expensive vehicles, after the Plaintiff declined the Defendant Mr. McLelland’s request for further representation on the additional legal charges, the Defendant then claimed that he is in the process of filing for bankruptcy and admits that he is experiencing financial and cash flow difficulties. (See Message annexed to the Affidavit of J.W. Carney, Jr., Esq. as Exhibit “3”). The Defendant, Edmund J. McLelland is currently detained at the Norfolk County Jail and House of Correction in Dedham, Massachusetts for an unrelated criminal matter. Although the Defendant is well aware of his outstanding balance, due to his financial difficulties, when requested to make payments for the legal services successfully rendered, the Defendant stated he “will fight [the Plaintiff] every step of the way” (See Exhibit “3”). Despite having an outstanding balance in the amount of $84,370.14, the Defendant’s only offer to pay was conditioned on further representation (which the Plaintiff declined). If the Defendant were to transfer his assets due to his divorce proceedings, he will have nothing from which the Plaintiff will be able to be paid. The Plaintiff seeks to prohibit the Defendant from transferring the ownership of his collection of classic vehicles and other automobiles or from transferring substantially all his assets without first ensuring payment to the Plaintiff or until further Order of this Court. Plaintiff knows of no other assets of the Defendant available to satisfy any judgment that might enter in this matter. Injunctions Generally In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, “a plaintiff, must show (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm will result from denial of the injunctions; and (3) that, in light of the plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff outweighs the potential harm to the defendant in granting the injunction.” Tri-Nel Management, Inc. v. Board of Health of Barnstable, 433 Mass 217, 219 (2001) (citing Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass 609, 617 (1980)). When weighing those considerations, the inquiry should not focus on determining the “raw amount of irreparable harm” each party might suffer, “but rather the risk of such harm in light of the party’s chance of success on the Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM Superior Court - Plymouth Docket Number merits.” Id. The Frontier Group of Massachusetts, Inc. v. George Price, 98-0347 (Toomey, Justice). The Plaintiff has a Likelihood of Success in Recovering the Amount Owed By Defendant, Edmund J. McLelland In the case at bar, the Plaintiff has a likelihood of success in recovering the amounts owed by the Defendant. According to the accounting of the Plaintiff, the Defendant owes $84,370.14 for the legal services and representation provided to the Defendant for his criminal cases. The Defendant Mr. McLelland has admitted owing this money but only took issue when further representation was declined. Given the excellent results that were obtained for Defendant, Mr. McLelland, he cannot take issue with the quality of the representation. The Defendants might attempt to raise issue with this amount, according to the contemporaneous text messages and communications, no dispute was taken with the amount that the Plaintiff is demanding. When the Defendant initially retained the Plaintiff, he was made aware of the retainer fee, billing rates, and of when Defendant should be expected to make payments for the services rendered. After the services were rendered and the excellent results were achieved, the Plaintiff made demands on the Defendant Mr. McLelland demands for payment. The Defendant on various occasions voiced his intent to repay the entirety of his invoice amounts, has expressed his satisfaction with the representation, and has even attempted to obtain representation from the Plaintiff for a subsequent criminal matter. Therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute to the amounts asserted by the Plaintiff and that Plaintiff has a likelihood of success in recovering the amount owed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff will be Irreparably Harmed without the Within ORDER because the Defendant’s Assets May Be Transferred Due to His Divorce Proceedings In the case at bar the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with legal services and representation and is damaged in the amount of $84,370.14 by his nonpayment. Currently, the Defendant’s known assets include his vast collection of classic vehicles, boats, and other automobiles and his interest in the martial home. If the Plaintiff is not prohibited from transferring the vehicles, the Defendant himself makes claim that there will be nothing at the end of the litigation from which to collect from the Defendant Edmund J. McLelland because he is threatening to file bankruptcy. Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM Superior Court - Plymouth Docket Number The Defendant is currently a party to divorce proceedings at Norfolk County Probate and Family Court, Docket No. NO22D0996DR. Although the Defendant had communicated that he wished to repay the Plaintiff, he told the Plaintiff that he would fight every step of the way because the Plaintiff would not represent him in additional criminal proceedings. The Defendant has also made claims that he is in the process of filing for bankruptcy and admits that he is experiencing financial and cash flow difficulties. Currently, the vehicles and boats under the Defendant’s ownership includes but is not limited to a 2007 Mustang Shelby, 2007 Dodge Ram, 1987 Porsche 911 Turbo, 1998 Ducati Monster, 1969 Plymouth Barracuda, 2003 Mercedes, 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner, 1965 MGB, a 1987 Viking Convertible Diesel-Powered Boat, and several other trucks and jet skis which the Plaintiff seeks to prevent from being transferred. In the case at bar, it is clear that the Defendant could easily transfer his known assets to the prejudice of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is currently a party to divorce proceedings and claims that he is facing financial and cash flow difficulties. The Plaintiff now seeks to prohibit the Defendant from transferring, conveying, encumbering or otherwise inhibit the Defendant from hiding his collection of automobiles, personal property and/or assets until further Order of this Honorable Court. Should the Defendant Edmund J. McLelland seek to transfer his ownership of his vast automobile collection, the Plaintiff will not be made whole by the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if there is no ORDER that the Defendant not transfer his ownership of his automobile collection in order to avoid irreparable harm. The Balance of the Equities Way in Favor of the Plaintiff to Prohibit the Defendants from Transferring his Assets The balance of the equities in the case at bar weigh in favor of the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff have provided exemplary legal services to the Defendant between July 27, 2022 and June 30, 2023. The Plaintiff obtained exemplary results for the Defendant and is currently owed the balance of $84,370.14. The Defendant’s known assets include his vast collection of classic vehicles, boats, and jet skis. However, the Defendant is currently a party to divorce proceedings at Norfolk County Probate and Family Court under Docket No. NO22D0996DR, and if the Defendant were to transfer his assets due to his divorce proceedings, he will have nothing from which the Plaintiff will be able to be paid except possibly the primary residence (which would also be subject to a Bankruptcy Court ORDER). The Plaintiff now seeks to prohibit the Date Filed 6/26/2024 9:10 AM ‘Superior Court Plymouth Docket Number Defendant from transferring the ownership of his collection of classic vehicles and other automobiles or from transferring substantially all his assets without first ensuring payment to the Plaintiff or until further Order of this Court. In the case at bar, the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs for prohibition of the Defendants transferring, conveying or encumbering his vast collection of classic vehicles, boats, and other automobiles. First and foremost, the Defendant most likely wants to retain the vehicles but might want to liquidate them in order to pay other bills. On balance, the exemplary results that resulted form the Plaintiffs representation (not guilty verdicts and dismissals), the balance of the equities weighs in favor of the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, in light of the fact that the Defendant has not paid the outstanding balance, that he has not disputed the outstanding balance, and in light of the likelihood of success that the Plaintiff has in this matter of recovering a judgment, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter a Preliminary Injunction which prohibits the Defendant from transferring, conveying, encumbering or otherwise inhibit the Defendant from transferring, conveying or encumbering the following personal property: 2007 Mustang Shelby, 2007 Dodge Ram, 1987 Porsche 911 Turbo, 1998 Ducati Monster, 1969 Plymouth Barracuda, 2003 Mercedes, 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner, 1965 MGB, a 1987 Viking Convertible Diesel-Powered Boat, and several other trucks and jet skis, until further Order of this Honorable Court. The Plaintiff, CARNEY, GAUDET & CARNEY, LLC By its attorney, /S/ Carlo Cellai, Esq. June 25, 2024 Carlo Cellai, Esq. BBO No. 558651 Date CELLAI LAW OFFICES, P.C. 150 Grossman Drive, Suite 201 Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 (617) 367-2199 Carlo@cellailaw.com