Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 44 422
HAMPSHIRE, ss SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1480CV00132
JOHN W. ROY and GINA L. ROY,
Plaintiffs
ve
RODNEY A. AVERY,
JOHN LOWELL and STEPHANIE LOWELL,
both d/b/a EAST DENNIS OYSTER FARM, and
PARKSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORP. d/b/a
CHAPIN’S FISH & CHIPS AND BEACH BAR,
Defendants
weeny es
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, JOHN LOWELL and STEPHANIE LOWELL both d/b/a
EAST DENNIS OYSTER FARM, TO DEFENDANT, PARKSIDE DEVELOPMENT
CORP. d/b/a CHAPIN’S FISH & CHIPS AND BEACH BAR’S,
CROSS CLAIM AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
FIRST DEFENSE
The Defendant, Parkside Development Corp. d/b/a Chapin’s Fish & Chips and Beach
Bar’s (“Defendant Parkside”), Cross Claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
The Defendants, John Lowell and Stephanie Lowell, both d/b/a East Dennis Oyster Farm
(“Defendants EDOF”), answer Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim, paragraph by paragraph, as
follows:
1. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim.
HAMPS:
602544y12. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim.
3. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim.
4, Defendants EDOF admit the allegations contained in paragraph 4 Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim.
Count I — Contribution
(v. Avery)
5-6. No responsive pleading is required of Defendants EDOF to paragraphs 5-6 of
Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim.
Count II - Contribution
(v. Lowells d/b/a EDOF)
7. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 6
of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
8. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they make any claim or claims against Defendants
EDOF.
Count II (sic) — Indemnification
(v. Avery)
9-11. No responsive pleading is required of Defendants EDOF to paragraphs 9-11 of
Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim.
602544v1Count ITI (sic) — Indemnification
(v. Lowells d/b/a EDOF)
12. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 11
of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
13. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
14. | Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
Count IV (sic) — Breach of Warranty
(v. Avery)
15. | Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 14
of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
16. Defendants EDOF admit to being a shellfish farmer, with a Massachusetts School
of Propagation Permit, a Massachusetts Commercial Shellfish Harvester, and a Massachusetts
Wholesale Dealer. Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16
of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim.
17. Defendants EDOF admit that Defendant Parkside purchased oysters from them.
Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim.
18. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
602544v119. ‘Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
20. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
Count IV (sic) - Breach of Warranty
(v. Lowells d/b/a EDOF)
21. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 20
of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
22. Defendants EDOF admit to being a shellfish farmer, with a Massachusetts School
of Propagation Permit, a Massachusetts Commercial Shellfish Harvester, and a Massachusetts
Wholesale Dealer. Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23
of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim.
23. | Defendants EDOF admit that Defendant Parkside purchased oysters from them.
Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim.
24. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
25. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
26. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
602544v1Count V (sic) — Violation of M.G.L. c. 93A §11
(v. Avery)
27. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 26
of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
28. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim.
29. Defendants EDOF admit that Defendant Parkside purchased oysters from them.
Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim.
30. | Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 30 Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim.
31. | Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
32. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
33. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
602544v1Count VI (sic) — Violation of M.G.L. c. 93A §11
(v. Lowells d/b/a EDOF)
34. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 33
of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
35. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim.
36. Defendants EDOF admit that Defendant Parkside purchased oysters from them.
Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 36 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim.
37. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim.
38. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
39. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
40. | Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of Defendant
Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF.
THIRD DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim for contribution fails to state a claim against Defendants EDOF upon which relief can be
granted.
602544v1FOURTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim for indemnification fails to state a claim against Defendants EDOF upon which relief can
be granted.
FIFTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that this action is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.
SIXTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside is not
entitled to recover because of its failure to mitigate the damages in this matter.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that if Defendant Parkside
suffered injuries or damages, as alleged, such injuries or damages were caused by someone for
whose conduct Defendants EDOF were not and are not legally responsible.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that they have no liability to
Defendant Parkside for the reason that the warranties which Defendant Parkside claim were
breached, were never made to Defendant Parkside and therefore he cannot recover in this action.
NINTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside, by its
conduct and actions, and/or by the conduct and actions of its agents, servants or employees,
cannot recover in this action.
602544v1TENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside, by its
conduct and actions and/or by the conduct and actions of its agents, servants or employees, has
waived any and all rights it may have against Defendants EDOF, and, therefore, Defendant
Parkside cannot recover in this action.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that if the plaintiffs suffered
injuries or damages, as alleged, such injuries or damages were caused by someone or something
for whose conduct Defendants EDOF were not and are not legally responsible.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, any negligence of Defendants EDOF, as alleged, was not
a proximate cause of Defendant Parkside’s damages.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that they did not violate M.G.L.
c. 94, § 150.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that the plaintiffs’ Complaint and
Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief
can be granted in that the plaintiffs and Defendant Parkside are not entitled to recover under
M.GLL. c. 94, § 150.
602544v1FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted in that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to recover under M.G.L. c. 93A.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that the plaintiffs and Defendant
Parkside have failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of M.G.L.
c. 93A; wherefore, the plaintiffs and Defendant Parkside are not entitled to any relief under said
Chapter.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that they acted in good faith,
reasonably and lawfully at all times and did not commit any unfair or deceptive acts or practices
in violation of any Massachusetts General Laws.
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside’s Cross
Claim fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted in that the
defendants did not breach any implied warranty of merchantability.
602544v1JURY CLAIM
THE DEFENDANTS DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ALL ISSUES
PROPERLY TRIED BY A JURY.
Lhereby certify that a true copy of the
above document was served upon (each
party appearing pro se and) the attorney
of record for each fother) party, by mail
l
10
602544v1
The Defendants,
JOHN LOWELL and STEPHANIE LOWELL,
both d/b/a EAST DENNIS OYSTER FARM,
By Their Attorneys
M. Mack, Esq. BBO#549369
ise M. Tremblay, Esq. BBO#561238
Morrison Mahoney LLP
1500 Main Street, Suite 2400
Springfield, MA 01115
(413)737-4373
(413) 739-3125 (fax)
rmack@morrisonmahoney.com
dtrembla@morrisonmahoney.com
Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 44 422 HAMPSHIRE, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1480CV00132 JOHN W. ROY and GINA L. ROY, Plaintiffs ve RODNEY A. AVERY, JOHN LOWELL and STEPHANIE LOWELL, both d/b/a EAST DENNIS OYSTER FARM, and PARKSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORP. d/b/a CHAPIN’S FISH & CHIPS AND BEACH BAR, Defendants weeny es ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, JOHN LOWELL and STEPHANIE LOWELL both d/b/a EAST DENNIS OYSTER FARM, TO DEFENDANT, PARKSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORP. d/b/a CHAPIN’S FISH & CHIPS AND BEACH BAR’S, CROSS CLAIM AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FIRST DEFENSE The Defendant, Parkside Development Corp. d/b/a Chapin’s Fish & Chips and Beach Bar’s (“Defendant Parkside”), Cross Claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE The Defendants, John Lowell and Stephanie Lowell, both d/b/a East Dennis Oyster Farm (“Defendants EDOF”), answer Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim, paragraph by paragraph, as follows: 1. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. HAMPS: 602544y12. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 3. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 4, Defendants EDOF admit the allegations contained in paragraph 4 Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. Count I — Contribution (v. Avery) 5-6. No responsive pleading is required of Defendants EDOF to paragraphs 5-6 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. Count II - Contribution (v. Lowells d/b/a EDOF) 7. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 6 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth herein. 8. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they make any claim or claims against Defendants EDOF. Count II (sic) — Indemnification (v. Avery) 9-11. No responsive pleading is required of Defendants EDOF to paragraphs 9-11 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 602544v1Count ITI (sic) — Indemnification (v. Lowells d/b/a EDOF) 12. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 11 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth herein. 13. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 14. | Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. Count IV (sic) — Breach of Warranty (v. Avery) 15. | Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth herein. 16. Defendants EDOF admit to being a shellfish farmer, with a Massachusetts School of Propagation Permit, a Massachusetts Commercial Shellfish Harvester, and a Massachusetts Wholesale Dealer. Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 17. Defendants EDOF admit that Defendant Parkside purchased oysters from them. Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 18. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 602544v119. ‘Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 20. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. Count IV (sic) - Breach of Warranty (v. Lowells d/b/a EDOF) 21. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 20 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth herein. 22. Defendants EDOF admit to being a shellfish farmer, with a Massachusetts School of Propagation Permit, a Massachusetts Commercial Shellfish Harvester, and a Massachusetts Wholesale Dealer. Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 23. | Defendants EDOF admit that Defendant Parkside purchased oysters from them. Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 24. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 25. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 26. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 602544v1Count V (sic) — Violation of M.G.L. c. 93A §11 (v. Avery) 27. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 26 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth herein. 28. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 29. Defendants EDOF admit that Defendant Parkside purchased oysters from them. Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 30. | Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 30 Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 31. | Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 32. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 33. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 602544v1Count VI (sic) — Violation of M.G.L. c. 93A §11 (v. Lowells d/b/a EDOF) 34. Defendants EDOF repeat and reallege their responses to paragraphs 1 through 33 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim and incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth herein. 35. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 36. Defendants EDOF admit that Defendant Parkside purchased oysters from them. Defendants EDOF deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 36 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 37. Defendants EDOF are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim. 38. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 39. Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. 40. | Defendants EDOF deny the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants EDOF. THIRD DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim for contribution fails to state a claim against Defendants EDOF upon which relief can be granted. 602544v1FOURTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim for indemnification fails to state a claim against Defendants EDOF upon which relief can be granted. FIFTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that this action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. SIXTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside is not entitled to recover because of its failure to mitigate the damages in this matter. SEVENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that if Defendant Parkside suffered injuries or damages, as alleged, such injuries or damages were caused by someone for whose conduct Defendants EDOF were not and are not legally responsible. EIGHTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that they have no liability to Defendant Parkside for the reason that the warranties which Defendant Parkside claim were breached, were never made to Defendant Parkside and therefore he cannot recover in this action. NINTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside, by its conduct and actions, and/or by the conduct and actions of its agents, servants or employees, cannot recover in this action. 602544v1TENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside, by its conduct and actions and/or by the conduct and actions of its agents, servants or employees, has waived any and all rights it may have against Defendants EDOF, and, therefore, Defendant Parkside cannot recover in this action. ELEVENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that if the plaintiffs suffered injuries or damages, as alleged, such injuries or damages were caused by someone or something for whose conduct Defendants EDOF were not and are not legally responsible. TWELFTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, any negligence of Defendants EDOF, as alleged, was not a proximate cause of Defendant Parkside’s damages. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that they did not violate M.G.L. c. 94, § 150. FOURTEENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that the plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted in that the plaintiffs and Defendant Parkside are not entitled to recover under M.GLL. c. 94, § 150. 602544v1FIFTEENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted in that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover under M.G.L. c. 93A. SIXTEENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that the plaintiffs and Defendant Parkside have failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of M.G.L. c. 93A; wherefore, the plaintiffs and Defendant Parkside are not entitled to any relief under said Chapter. SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that they acted in good faith, reasonably and lawfully at all times and did not commit any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of any Massachusetts General Laws. EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE By way of affirmative defense, Defendants EDOF state that Defendant Parkside’s Cross Claim fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted in that the defendants did not breach any implied warranty of merchantability. 602544v1JURY CLAIM THE DEFENDANTS DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ALL ISSUES PROPERLY TRIED BY A JURY. Lhereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon (each party appearing pro se and) the attorney of record for each fother) party, by mail l 10 602544v1 The Defendants, JOHN LOWELL and STEPHANIE LOWELL, both d/b/a EAST DENNIS OYSTER FARM, By Their Attorneys M. Mack, Esq. BBO#549369 ise M. Tremblay, Esq. BBO#561238 Morrison Mahoney LLP 1500 Main Street, Suite 2400 Springfield, MA 01115 (413)737-4373 (413) 739-3125 (fax) rmack@morrisonmahoney.com dtrembla@morrisonmahoney.com