Document for Debra Rowell Personal Representative for the Estate of Alonzo Polk, Jr. et al vs. Coughlin, James et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

NORFOLK, SS.                                                           SUPERIOR COURT
                                                                       CIVIL ACTION NO.: &{$20/00477

DEBRA ROWELL AND
ALONZO POLK, SR., AS
                                                                                                         es
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE                                                                                  nd
ESTATE OF ALONZO POLK, JR.,                                                                                      Ss
                                                                                                                         m1
      Plaintiffs                                                                                                 =
                                                                                                                 Ea
Vv.                                                                                                                      mo


JAMES COUGHLIN,
LESLIE COUGHLIN,
LAURA CONNOLLY POWERS,
JOHN POWERS,
SEAN KELLEHER,
HARLY RAMIREZ
AMILYO GERONIMO

               Defendants




        PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE ATTACHMENT
                                       (Memorandum of Law Incorporated)


               NOW    COME       Plaintiffs,   Debra   Rowell   and   Alonzo    Polk,   Sr.   as   the        Personal

Representatives of the Estate of Alonzo Polk Jr. (the “Plaintiffs” or “the Estate”), and pursuant to

Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1,           hereby move for approval of a writ of attachment of all right, title, and

interest in, real property owned by Defendants James Coughlin and Leslie Coughlin! and by

Defendants Laura Connolly Powers and John Powers? to secure Plaintiffs’ anticipated judgment

on their claims.?           The property sought to be attached is the real estate owned by the Coughlin


' Defendants James Coughlin and Leslie Coughlin are collectively referred to as “the Coughlin Defendants.”
? Defendants John Powers and Laura Connolly Powers are collectively referred to as “the Powers Defendants.”
3 Defendants James Coughlin, Leslie Coughlin, John Powers, and Laura Connolly Powers are collectively referred to
as “the Party Host Defendants.”

{B2137247.3)
Defendants, located at 36 Netta Road, Dedham, Massachusetts (the “Coughlin Property”); the real

estate owned by the Powers Defendants located at 19 Netta Road, Dedham, Massachusetts (the

“Powers Property’); and the real estate owned by Leslie Coughlin and Laura Connolly Powers

located             at 37   Carleton   Drive,   East   Sandwich,   Massachusetts   (the   “Coughlin/Powers   Joint

Property”).            See Quitclaim Deed, dated June 4, 1996, recorded at the Norfolk County Registry of

Deeds at Book 2654, page 274, attached hereto as Exhibit A; Quitclaim Deed, dated August 8,

2022, recorded at the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds at Book 40855, page 459, attached hereto

as Exhibit B; Quitclaim Deed, dated August 26, 2015, recorded at the Barnstable Registry of

Deeds at Book                1417, page 836, attached hereto as Exhibit C. For the reasons set out below,

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court approve an attachment against the

Coughlin Property in the amount of $1,000,000, an attachment against the Powers Property in the

amount of $1,000,000, and an attachment against the Coughlin/Powers Joint Property in the

amount of $1,000,000.

I              BACKGROUND

               A.           Factual Background

               As a result of Alonzo Polk’s death at the Coughlin Property, the Coughlin Defendants were

charged with and pleaded guilty to furnishing alcohol to minors and admitted that there were

sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt for reckless endangerment of a child. The following

facts were admitted by the Coughlin Defendants in a criminal hearing regarding charges arising

from the same incident.

                      The Coughlin Defendants hosted a graduation party for their daughter who had just
                      graduated from Dedham High School. See Exhibit D at pp. 7; 15.
                      The party was hosted at their home in Dedham Jd.
                      Several teenagers admitted to bringing alcohol to the party and were openly drinking
                      by the pool. Jd. at pp. 9518.
                      The Coughlin Defendants were present when the underage drinking occurred. /d.

{B2137247.3}                                                   2
There are multiple photos and videos showing underage teenagers drinking alcohol
                  throughout the party. Jd. at pp. 10; 18.
                  Some teens were seen trying to push other guests into the pool. Jd.
                  Sometime before midnight, the Coughlin Defendants and other adults went inside,
                  leaving the teens alone in the pool area. /d. at p. 7; 15 — 16.
                  While the Coughlin Defendants were inside, Alonzo Polk entered the pool with two
                  other teens Jd. pp. 7-8; 15-16.
                  The two other teens emerged from the water. Jd. pp. 7; 16.
                  Sometime later, after noticing they had not seen Alonzo, the teens began looking for
                  him, and eventually found him in the deep end of the pool. Jd. pp. 8; 16.
                  Teens began performing CPR, called 911, and ran into the house for help, at which
                  point Defendant James Coughlin began performing CPR. Jd. at pp. 8, 16.
                  When officers arrived at the Coughlin residence in response to 911 calls regarding the
                  incident, they were confronted by several obviously intoxicated teenagers. Jd. at pp. 8;
                  16.
                  Officers had to use flashlights to navigate around the pool, which was dark and difficult
                  to see even with their flashlights. Jd. at pp. 8; 17.
                  An underwater light designed to illuminate the pool was outside the pool, face down
                  on the pool deck and was not operative. /d. at pp. 9; 17.
                  Defendant James Coughlin was aware the light was out. Jd.
                  Multiple witnesses recounted being unable to see the bottom of the pool throughout the
                  night and during the time that the incident occurred, and recounted having difficulty
                  seeing who was near them when they were in the pool. /d. at pp. 10;18.

               The following facts have been discovered through review of the materials produced by

Norfolk District Attorney’s Office related to the investigation conducted by the Dedham Police

Department, attached hereto as Exhibit E. Based on information and belief, the report is a true and

accurate representation of the facts that occurred the night of the incident.

                  e   The Party Host Defendants provided coolers filled with alcohol which lined a fence
                      on the property, and underage guests were allowed to freely take whatever they
                      wanted from the coolers, including alcohol. See Exhibit E. at pp. 6; 16.
                      At one point, Defendant James Coughlin told Defendant Amilyo Geronimo that he
                      was “cut off” because he was too intoxicated; Defendant James Coughlin allegedly
                      took a beer out of Defendant Amilyo Geronimo’s hand while doing so. Jd. at 7.
                      Party Host Defendants knew or should have known that their underage guests,
                      including Defendant Amilyo Geronimo, would continue to drink and were
                      continuing to become increasingly more intoxicated.
                      Decedent, Alonzo Polk, an invited guest, was pushed into the pool by Defendants
                      Harly Ramirez and Amilyo Geronimo. id. at p. 8
                      Since the pool did not have an operable light, and the water was already murky,
                      with dozens of intoxicated minors rough housing in the pool, guests at the party

482137247.3)
were unable to see into the water, and nobody noticed that Alonzo had sunk to the
                      bottom of the pool. /d. at 8 - 10.
                      Approximately    10-15 minutes after Alonzo Polk, Jr. entered the pool, he was
                      rescued by other intoxicated teens. /d. at p. 8.
                      Intoxicated minors began performing CPR on Alonzo Polk, Jr., until Defendant
                      James Coughlin intervened, performing CPR until paramedics arrived and
                      transported Alonzo Polk, Jr. to Faulkner Hospital, and eventually transferred him
                      to Boston Children’s Hospital. /d. at 8-9; 42.
                      On June 8, 2021, Alonzo Polk, Jr. passed away at Boston Children’s Hospital, due
                      to injuries sustained from drowning in the pool at the Coughlins’ home on June 6,
                      2021.

               As stated above, as a result of Alonzo Polk’s death at the Coughlin Property, the Coughlin

Defendants were charged with and pleaded guilty to furnishing alcohol to minors and admitted

that there were sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt for reckless endangerment of a child.

Ti.            ARGUMENT

               A      Legal Standard

               “Subsequent to the commencement of any action under these rules,” real estate may “be

attached and held to satisfy the judgment for damages and costs which the plaintiff may recover.”

Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1(a). Under Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1(c), the court may approve an attachment upon

a finding “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will recover judgment, including

interest and costs, in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the attachment over and

above any liability insurance shown by the defendant to be available to satisfy the judgment.” See,

e.g., Kurker vy. Shoestring Properties Ltd. P’ship, No. 02362, 2009 WI: 3416237, at *1 (Mass.

Super. Aug. 8, 2009).




               B       The Court Should Approve an Attachment in the Amount of $1,000,000
                      Against Each Property Owned by The Coughlin Defendants, The Power:
                      Defendants, and Their Jointly Held Property Because there is a Reasonable
                      Likelihood    of Success_on     the       Merits   and_a   Reasonable   Likelihood   that


(B2137247.3}                                                4
Plaintiffs   Will_Recover_Judgment          Exceeding     Any   Liability   Insurance
                   ‘ Maintained by Defendants

              A plaintiff may     demonstrate   a reasonable   likelihood   of success   on the merits by

establishing the basic elements of the cause of action. Aetna Cas.           & Sur. Co. v. Rodco Autobody,

138 F.R.D. 328, 332 (D. Mass. 1991). While a plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood

of success on the merits, certainty of success is not required. See Latorraca v. Centennial Techs.

Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 208, 211 (D. Mass. 2008). To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must

prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, that the defendant breached

this duty, that damage resulted, and that there was a causal relation between the breach of the duty

and the damage. See Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 849 N.E.2d 829 (2006). In Massachusetts, the

social host liability doctrine imposes a duty of care to social hosts who furnish alcohol to guests,

making hosts “liable for injuries to third parties where the [host] controlled the supply of alcohol.”

Lev v. Beverly Enters.-Mass., Inc., 457 Mass. 234, 241-242, 929 N.E.2d 303 (2010).

              The Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognizes the social host liability doctrine. See

Juliano v. Simpson, 461 Mass. 527, 962 N.E.2d 175 (2012). Under this doctrine “liability attaches

only where a social host either serves alcohol or exercises effective control over the supply of

alcohol.” Jd. In determining whether social host liability applies, the court must consider “whether

the social host unreasonably created a risk of injury to a person who the social host should

reasonably have foreseen might be injured as a result of the guest’s intoxication.” McGuiggan v.

New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 398 Mass. 152, 161-62 (1986). While most case law applies social

host liability to instances where the intoxicated guest injured a third party in a motor vehicle

accident, there is no indication that social host liability only applies in those circumstances.

              In this case, the Party Host Defendants willfully, wantonly, and recklessly furnished

alcohol that was consumed by underage guests on the night of the Party. The Party Host

{B21372473}
Defendants provided coolers full of alcohol which were openly available to the teenage guests.

Defendant James Coughlin was seen “shutting off’ Defendant Amilyo                   Geronimo    because he

deemed Geronimo too intoxicated, evidencing Defendant James Coughlin’s control of the supply

of alcohol. Shortly after “cutting off’ Defendant Geronimo, Defendant James Coughlin, and the

rest of the Party Host Defendants, went inside, leaving the “obviously intoxicated” teens with

unfettered access to the alcohol in the coolers outside. See Exhibit D, at pp. 7 — 8. The Party Host

Defendants were furnishing the alcohol, controlling who drank, and controlling how much they

were able to drink.        The Coughlin Defendants admitted to furnishing alcohol to minors at their

September 2023 sentencing hearing. See Jd. As social hosts who controlled the supply of alcohol

and knowingly furnished alcohol to obviously intoxicated minors who caused foreseeable harm to

a third-party, the Party Host Defendants are liable for the reasonably foreseeable harm caused to

Alonzo Polk, Jr. by overly intoxicated underage guests at the Party.

              By willfully, wantonly, and recklessly supplying alcohol to overly intoxicated teens, the

Party Host Defendants created a risk of injuryto Alonzo Polk, Jr., and this risk was a reasonably

foreseeable result of the guests’ intoxication. When officers arrived at the scene of the incident,

they noticed cans of beer littered throughout the yard, and coolers and boxes filled with alcohol

lining the fence of the property. See Exhibit D, at pp.           9 - 10.   It was plainly foreseeable that

Defendants Harly Ramirez and Amilyo Geronimo, then overly intoxicated, may accidentally push

Polk into the pool, where the underage intoxicated guests were roughhousing. With dozens of

drunk, unsupervised, teens in a pool with murky water, that does not have an operable light, it was

plainly foreseeable that an intoxicated teenager pushed into the dark pool could drown and that

nobody would notice because of the party environment.

              “(N]egligent conduct is the proximate cause of an injury ... [if] the injury to the plaintiff



{B21372473}
was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligent conduct.” Delaney v. Reynolds, 63 Mass.

App. Ct. 239, 241, 825 N.E.2d 554, 556 (2005). An injury is foreseeable if “the actor realizes or

should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the conduct of the

other or a third person which is intended to cause harm” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 302B

(1965).        Here, it was foreseeable that intoxicated minors, who are celebrating their high school

graduation, may get excited and engage in risky behavior, such as roughhousing and pushing

people into a pool. On at least one occasion during the party, the Party Host Defendants witnessed

guests trying to throw other guests into the deep end of the pool.

              The Party Host Defendants’ condonation of excessive underage drinking at the Party

coupled with the Coughlin Defendants’ failure to properly light the pool area was the proximate

cause of Alonzo Polk’s death and conscious pain and suffering. When Police officers arrived on

the scene, they noted that the water was “pitch black” and they could not see the bottom of the

pool, even with the help of their flashlights. See Exhibit D, at p 8. Teens at the party noted that

the pool area was so dark that they could not see other people in the pool. Jd. at 9.

              Here, it was plainly foreseeable that overly intoxicated teenagers swimming in a poorly lit

pool at night, unsupervised, could result in harm to one or more of them, Guests could have, and

would have, rescued Polk had they seen him struggling, but they could not see him, because the

pool light was disconnected. The Party Hosts knew that the area was dark but chose not to intervene

to stop the overly intoxicated guests from pushing each other into the pool.

              The Plaintiffs suffered significant, irreversible harm due to the Party Host Defendants’

negligence. Alonzo Polk, Jr. drowned in the Coughlins’ pool for more than ten minutes, while

guests were mere feet away. But for the pool light being inoperable, guests could have and would

have rescued him had they seen him. When Alonzo Polk Jr. was rescued from the pool, he had



{821372473}
white foam coming out of his mouth and ears. Polk suffered significant trauma to his brain,

including swelling. Less than 48 hours after attending the Party at the Coughlin Property, Alonzo

Polk Jr. was pronounced dead, a mere two days after graduating high school, and merely ten days

before his eighteenth birthday. Debra Rowell and Alonzo Polk, Sr. lost their child. The Party Host

Defendants breached their duty of care as social hosts by allowing overly intoxicated guests to

continue to drink after the Party Host Defendants knew they were intoxicated, directly contributing

to Alonzo Polk, Jr.’s death.

               Given the above, there is a reasonable likelihood that Plaintiffs will prevail on their

negligence claims. As social hosts who controlled the supply of alcohol, the Party Host Defendants

are liable for Alonzo Polk, Jr.’s death, which was caused by intoxicated minors that the Party Host

Defendants knowingly supplied alcohol to. The Party Host Defendants owed a duty of care to all

guests and third parties that could have been foreseeably harmed by an intoxicated guest. Party

Host Defendants breached this duty of care by failing to prevent the harm caused to Alonzo Polk,

Jr., who died because of injuries sustained after being pushed into the poo! at the Coughlins’ home

on June 6, 2021.

               Cc      There is a Reasonable Likelihood that the Estate Will Recover a Judgement
                       Equal to or Greater than the Amount of the Attachment Sought.

               In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs request approval of an attachment in the amount of

$1,000,000 against each of the properties listed in the memorandum.              As a result of The Party Host

Defendants’ willful, wanton, and reckless furnishment of alcohol to minor guests and removal of

the light in the deep end of the pool, Alonzo Polk Jr. drowned in The Coughlins’ pool and died a

few     days        later as a result of his injuries.   In addition,   Alonzo   Polk   Jr.’s family   suffered

immeasurable pain and suffering after losing their son, brother, and friend just days before he was

to turn eighteen. The Estate requests that the attachment include an additional $1,925,000 as


(B2137247.3}
compensation for these intangible damages. See Plaintiff, Estate of v. Defendant, JVR No. 105156,

1993 WL 774072 (Mass. Super.) (Jury returned a verdict of $475,000 in favor of plaintiff's estate

after plaintiff drowned in a pool due to defendant’s negligence; after adjusting for inflation, the

award is equivalent to $1,188,748.79 in 2024.).

               As provided by Mass. R. Civ. P. Rule 4.1(c), an order for attachment may be entered “upon

finding by the court that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will recover judgment,

including interest and costs, in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the attachment

over and above any liability insurance shown by the defendant to be available to satisfy the

judgmen oo Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1(c).             In this case, the Coughlin Defendants have provided

documentation of a homeowner's insurance policy that has a $500,000 liability limit.4 The

Plaintiffs’ expected damages go beyond the homeowner’s liability insurance policy.

ll.            CONCLUSION

               WHEREFEORE, and for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this

Honorable Court approve an attachment of the Coughlin Property located at 36 Netta Road,

Dedham, Massachusetts in the amount of $1,000,000; an attachment of the Powers Property located

at 19 Netta Road, Dedham, Massachusetts in the amount of $1,000,000; and an attachment of the

Coughlin/Powers Joint Property located at 37 Carleton Drive, East Sandwich, Massachusetts in

the amount of $1,000,000.




                                                            Respectfully Submitted,
                                                            The Plaintiffs,

“Tt is presently unknown what insurance coverage is maintained for the Powers’ Property and Coughlin/Powers
Joint Property.

{B2137247.3}
DEBRA ROWELL AND
                   ALONZO POLK, SR., AS
                   PERONSAL         REPRESENTATIVES OF
                   THE ESTATE OF ALONZO POLK, JR.,
                   By their attorneys,

                   Is! Gregory   D. Henning

                   Gregory D. Henning, Esq. (BBO #663189)
                   Greg. Henning@henningstrategies.com
                   Henning Strategies
                   141 Tremont Street — 3 floor
                   Boston, MA 02111
                   Tel: (617) 293-6534




(821372473)   10