Preview
To: Page 3 of18 . . 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) i 461 76870384 From: Jason Carter
: . Mt . :
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, SS NORFOLK SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: 1682CV01564
JOHN TASSINARI, JR.
- Plaintiff
Vv.
BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF THE
WM. B, DALTON AMERICAN
LEGION, INC.,
sew
Defendant
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIEF’S REQUEST ,
FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY
Now comes the Defendant in the above referenced matter, and submits the following
opposition to Plaintiffs Request for Further Discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff is requesting’ leave
to conduct the deposition of Paul Anastasio, president of the Defendant, In said request, Plaintiff
slates, “he Deposition of Paul Anastasio is necessary to further inquire as to what transpired in
September 2016 that may have caused Mr. Anastasio to back out of the Agreement between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant”. <
This discovery request is irrelevant for the purposes of this motion, and Plaintiff has
failed to show good cause as to why such, further discovery should be allowed. What is at issue
for the purposes of this motion is whether or not there was an cnforceable contract for the sale of“.
the property. Plaintiff is now attempting to argue that should be allowed discovery to see any
_ Potential reasons for the defendant breaking the alleged contract. Said proposed further, discovery :
would offer nothing further to the question of the existence of the alleged contract, and would
only serve to further delay the disposition of this motion.10, ragedoris - me + 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) "48176870384 ‘From: Jason Car
Procedural History
Defendant filed this Special Motion to Dismiss on or about June 16, 2017. In his
opposition to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff raised the issue of discovery response not being
complete, even though such a motion stays discovery, and even though Defendant had responded
to Plaintiff’s Requests for Intertogatories and Requests for Admissions. Inthe opposition,
Plaintiff cited the questionable timing regarding the filing of the Special Motion to Dismiss. At
the hearing for the Special Motion to Dismiss, the timing and delay was explained as a result of
medical issues affecting Defendant’s Counsel. Following the hearing on the Special Motion to
Dismiss, Defendant complied with the remaining outstanding discovery requests, and produced
nearly 300 pages of responsive documents. .
Plaintiff was given the opportunity to supplement his opposition with the documents
provided in Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff failed to
provide, any meaningful supplement to the opposition, stating simply that further discovery
needed to be conducted, but did not state what good cause necessitated further discovery to allow
for the lifting of the stay.
When this Court directed the Plaintiff to file a motion stating what good cause'existed for
the lifting of the stay, Plaintiff again raised the “questionable timing” of the filing of the Special
Motion to Dismiss, even though that had already been addressed at the hearing for the Special
Motion to Dismiss.
Argument
Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct a deposition is improper and irrelevant both as to
the legal standard for the Special Motion to Dismiss, and as to the actual factual background of
the matter. The Plaintiff has filed a complaint, with just one count, seeking specific performanceTo: Page 5of 18 ' veoh, 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT): - “'s 1 46176870384 From: Jeson Carte
of an alleged coniract for the sale of certain property. Defendant has filed this special motion to
dismiss on the basis that there is no contract, nor has there ever been a contract, for the sale of
the property. The question for review by this court is whether there was an actual contract in
place for the sale of the property.
As noted previously in Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss, filed with this Court on
or about June 16, 2017, the Court shall dissolve a Memorandum of Lis Pendens and dismiss the
claims upon which it is based if such claims are fiivolous. Claims are frivolous within the
meaning of the statute if they fail any of the following three standards: “(1) It is utterly devoid of
any reasonably factual support; (2) it is devoid of any arguable basis in law; or (3) the action or
claim is subject to dismissal based on a valid legal defense such as statute of frauds.” M.G.L. c.
184, § 15,
Looking to the third standard, regarding the Statute of Frauds, where a Defendant raises
the Statute of Prauds as a defense, “the party seeking performance under the alleged coitract
bears the burden of proof of its existence.” STover v. Carpenter, 2016 WL 54899, citing Canney
v, New England Yel. & Tel. Co., 353 Mass. 158, 164 (1967). Here, Defendant’s motion for leave
to conduct discovery doesn’t seek to obtain facts relevant to the existence of the alleged contract.
Instead, the request already assumes the existence of said contract. Whether or not something
occurred.which calised Defendant to “back out” of an alleged agreement is complétely irrelevant
to the question of whether or not there was an actual agreement in existence in the first place.
Looking to the second standard, regarding whether there is an arguable basis in law. for
the lis pendens, the review must be-as to the actual elements ofa contract. As noted in the
Special Motion to Dismiss, contract formation requires there to be a bargain in which there is a
manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange. Sitwation Mgmt. Sys. Ine. v. Maiouf, Tne, 430To: Page 6 of 18 . 2017-07-17 19:06:00: (GMT) 4 “4 (46176870384, From: Jason Carte
Mass. 875, 878, 724 N.E.2d 699 (2000). Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 1701) (1981).
“The manifestation of mutual assent between contracting parties generally consists of an offer by
one and the acceptance of it by the other. J & R Mechanical, Ine. v. Hazelton Mg. Co., 62.
Mass.App.Ct. 452, 454-455 (2004), citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts, at § 22(1). “An
offer ripens into a binding contract when it is accepted. Acceptance occurs when the offeree
gives the return requested in the offer.” Jc/, citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts, at § 50(1).
Plaintiff's request for the deposition does not seek facts related to any of those élements
of a contract. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that there was acceptance of the offer.
Plaintiff is not seeking facts as to the acceptance of the offer, but rather facts related to the :
Defendant’s decision to “back out” of the alleged contract. .
Finally, even if the Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct a deposition of Paul Anastasio
were to somehow bear some sort of relevance to the question before this court for this motion,
the request fails as to the first standard in a Special Motion to Dismiss- the factual basis.
Plaintiff clainis in his request for leave to conduct the discovery that further inquiry is
necessary because, “Plaintiff believes that there was some change in circumstances involving
Mr. Anastasio’s ability to obtain a liquor license for a for-profit corporation to be operated out of
the- premises that are in dispute in this case and that this was his motivation to not honor his
agreement.” This statement, however, contradicts the facts which the Plaintiff himself ‘has sei
forth in his complaint. According to an article from Wicked Local Holbrook, dated September
15, Paul Anastasio is quoted as saying on September 7, 2016, “We will probably 'pul! the ,
building off the market next week when the contract expires, and the Liberty Publik House will
open in about three weeks.” See attached Exhibit A. This article was attached as Exhibit E to
Plaintiff's original complaint, filed with this court on or about December 13, 2016, and attachedTo, Page 7 of 18 ia ‘ . 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT), * : 18176870384 Front Jason Cart
as Bxhibit | to Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss. This quote from Mr. Anastasio is
approximately one week prior to Plaintiff's first written offer for the purchase of ‘the property,
Clearly, there was already in place a plan to move forward with opening the Publik House.
Itis'worth noting that, even if there were to be an argument that the discovery requested
could plausibly be legally relevant for the purposes of this motion, and even if the facts
undermining Plaintiff's alleged need for further discovery were to be ignored, the discovery
requested by Plaintiff has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying complaint. Plaintiff has
filed a complaint with just one count- Specific Performance of a Contract to Purchase Real
Estate. The allegation is a simple breach of contract claim. Plaintiff has failed to state how the :
discovery requested is necessary to prove a breach of contract claim, because it simply isn't
Whether or not a Defendant changed his or her mind regarding a contract is irrelevant to whether
or not there was an enforceable contract in the first place. |
Conclusion
Tn order to overcome Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff must show that
there was an enforceable contract for the sale of the property. Quite simply, the Plaintiff. cannot
meet this burden. Defendant has provided the affidavit of Paul Anastasio, manager of
Defendant, stating relevant facts for the purpose of this motion. Defendant has provided nearly
300 pages of documents to Plaintiff, This Court has given the Plaintiff multiple opportunities to
come up with something to support the claim that there was an actual contract for the sale of the
property, and Plaintiff has failed to come up with anything substantive.
For the reasons outlined in this motion, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to deny
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Depose Paul Anastasio. Further, for the reasons outlined in’
Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss, Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Further Opposition, andTo: Page 6 of 18 é cos +» 2017-07-17:19:06:00 (GMT, ' 46176870384 From: Jason Carte.
“4 wey
the reasons outlined in this motion, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to dismiss this
complaint, dissolve the Memorandum of Lis Pendens, award Defendant's reasonable attorney's ‘
fees, and award any other such relief as this Court deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Anastasio,
By Its Attorney,
Jason Carter
Law Office of Jason Carter
21 McGrath Highway, Suite 501
Quincy, MA 02169
(617) 942-0892
BBO# 678176
jason@jasoncarterlaw.com
Date: July 17, 2017To, Page Sof 18 : . 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT)
18176870384 From: Jéson:CarteTo:
Page 10 0f 18 *
‘23/2017
‘ ca) 2017-07-47,19:06:00 (GMT) aa "16176870384 From: Jason Carter
Publik House moves ita Holbrokc Léon , hoa? ee
wiExen HOLBROOK
Publik House moves into Holbrook Legion
Thursday
Posted Sep 15, 2016-at 2:18 PM
By Jeanne M. Rideout
The building at 777 Plymouth St. will have a new club and manager, but remain
the William B. Dalton American Legion Post 137.
Coming soon is the Liberty Publik House, replacing the Dalton Club. os
“Tt still remains a veterans club and a veterans organization,” incoming manager |
Paul Anastasio told Holbrook selectmen Sept. 7. “It’s still a Legion post. The
name change is to draw in new members.”
The selectmen voted unanimously to approve the change of manager and name
change from Dalton Club to Liberty Poblik House.
An expanded membership is key to removing the “for sale” sign on the front
lawn and retaining the Dalton Post in Holbrook.
The newly remodeled post is now temporarily closed.
Faced with a large building with a large overhead, selling the post was an option
the building association explored and will probably soon abandon. .
“Selling was one of our contingency plans,” Anastasio said after the meeting.*
The post’s new image and new potential to attract members likely will change,
this plan.
“We will probably pull the building off the market next week when the contract -
expires, and the Liberty Publik House will open in about three weeks,” Anastasio
said. “We're hoping to draw in a larger membership. That's why it is important
to rebrand. It's going to be great. We hope to round up the veteran community
and become a hub for veterans on the South Shore.”
hitpu¢holbr ook.wickediocal.comMews/2016091 S/publik-house-moves-Inte-holbroolclegion ” waTo: Page 11 of 18 . . . 201 7-07-47 19:06:00 (GMT) ‘ 16176870384 . From: -dason Carte.
suo? . Me “Publi House moves rte Heleronk Legion
Membership in the post is open to veterans and family members. The Ladies
Auxiliary and Sons of the.American Legion welcomes women and men whose
parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, sibling, or dependent served in the
military. ,
The Dalton Post traditionally features a bar and grill, darts, pool, trivia, sports,
country dance and live entertainment.
http/holbrock.wickedlocal .com/news/2016D915!publik-hous e-moves-into-holbrook-legion . . 22To. Page 120F18 .. , + 2017-07-17 19:08:00 (GMT)
AIBITTo;
Page 13 0f 18
2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) “s 16176870384..Froth: Jason Carte
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss NORFOLK SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: 1682CV01564
JOHN TASSINARI, JR.
Plaintiff
Vv.
BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF THE
WM. B. DALTON AMERICAN
LEGION, INC.,
I, Jason Carter, hereby state the following based upon my personal knowledge:
we Sm ee
Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF JASON CARTER
1. Tam an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and I
am now and have been in good standing.
. My firm, Law Office of Jason Carter, has been retained by the Defendant in the above-
referenced matter.
. The document attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the article J
downloaded from the website, “Wicked Local Holbrook” at
hitp://holbrook.wickedlocal.c:
on or about May 25, 2017. This is the same article which was attached as Exhibit E to
Plaintiff's Complaint, filed with this Court on or about December 13, 2016, and Exhibit 1...
of Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss, filed with this Court on or about June 16,
2017.To: Page14of18 => na ~ | 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT), “a ops). 46176870384 Frém: Jason Carte
. Hea . : spe
“ 1 :
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury: July 17, 2017
fason CarterTo: Page 1§0f18 =. ty mh . 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT). | 16176870384 From: Jason Carte
: . oan
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jason Carter, hereby certify that on July 17,2017 I served a copy of the enclosed
documents, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Sean Began
Zero Governors Avenue, Unit 33
Medford, MA 02155To. Page 16 0f'18 2017-07-17 19:06:00(GMT) of 16176870384 ‘From: Jason Carter
. ‘ . . 7 ‘ aa wt
hb Loh ‘ : me a
“
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, SS NORFOLK SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: 1682CV01564
JOHN TASSINARI, JR.
Plaintiff
Vv.
BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF THE
WM. B. DALTON AMERICAN
LEGION, INC,
We
Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF SACHA ANASTASIO
L, Sacha Anastasio, hereby state the following based upon my personal knowledge:
1. Lwas the listing agent for the Defendant in the negotiations regarding the potential sale of
the property which is the subject of this litigation.
2. 1am over the age of 18, and competeut to testify as to the matters herein.
3. Ireceived two written offers for the purchase of the property.
4. The document attached as Exhibit A to Defendant’s previously filed Response to Further
Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the first offer I
received on behalf of Plaintiff.
5. The documents attached as Exhibit C. to Defendant’s previously filed Response to Further
Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the second offer I.
received on behalf of Plaintiff.
6. I had numerous email conversations with Bob Humphreys, the broker for the Plaintiff in
this action.To: Page 17 of 18
10.
I.
2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT). 4 "46176870384 ‘Frony: Jason Carte
“ ee
Upon request from Defendant’s counsel, | forwarded multiple emails to Defendant’s
counsel reflecting the conversations.
The documents attached as Exhibit B of Defendant's previously filed Response to Further
Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email
conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 14, 2016, Which I
forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016.
The documents attached as Exhibit D of Defendant’s previously filed Response to *
Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email
conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 20, 2016, which I.
forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016
The documents attached as Exhibit E of Defendant’s previously filed Response ‘o Further
Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email
conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 23, 2016, which I
forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016
The documents attached as Exhibit F of Defendant’s previously filed Response to Further
Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email
conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 25, 2016, which 1
forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016
12,
The documents attached as Exhibit G of Defendant’s previously filed Response to .
Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email
conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 29, 2016, which I
forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016To: Page 18 of 18 ty ‘ - 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) ° - 5 16176870384 From:iJason Carter
Signed under -tlie pains and pevialiies of perjury* July 14, 2017
‘Sicha Anastasio”
Preview
To: Page 3 of18 . . 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) i 461 76870384 From: Jason Carter : . Mt . : COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, SS NORFOLK SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 1682CV01564 JOHN TASSINARI, JR. - Plaintiff Vv. BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF THE WM. B, DALTON AMERICAN LEGION, INC., sew Defendant DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIEF’S REQUEST , FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY Now comes the Defendant in the above referenced matter, and submits the following opposition to Plaintiffs Request for Further Discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff is requesting’ leave to conduct the deposition of Paul Anastasio, president of the Defendant, In said request, Plaintiff slates, “he Deposition of Paul Anastasio is necessary to further inquire as to what transpired in September 2016 that may have caused Mr. Anastasio to back out of the Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant”. < This discovery request is irrelevant for the purposes of this motion, and Plaintiff has failed to show good cause as to why such, further discovery should be allowed. What is at issue for the purposes of this motion is whether or not there was an cnforceable contract for the sale of“. the property. Plaintiff is now attempting to argue that should be allowed discovery to see any _ Potential reasons for the defendant breaking the alleged contract. Said proposed further, discovery : would offer nothing further to the question of the existence of the alleged contract, and would only serve to further delay the disposition of this motion.10, ragedoris - me + 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) "48176870384 ‘From: Jason Car Procedural History Defendant filed this Special Motion to Dismiss on or about June 16, 2017. In his opposition to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff raised the issue of discovery response not being complete, even though such a motion stays discovery, and even though Defendant had responded to Plaintiff’s Requests for Intertogatories and Requests for Admissions. Inthe opposition, Plaintiff cited the questionable timing regarding the filing of the Special Motion to Dismiss. At the hearing for the Special Motion to Dismiss, the timing and delay was explained as a result of medical issues affecting Defendant’s Counsel. Following the hearing on the Special Motion to Dismiss, Defendant complied with the remaining outstanding discovery requests, and produced nearly 300 pages of responsive documents. . Plaintiff was given the opportunity to supplement his opposition with the documents provided in Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff failed to provide, any meaningful supplement to the opposition, stating simply that further discovery needed to be conducted, but did not state what good cause necessitated further discovery to allow for the lifting of the stay. When this Court directed the Plaintiff to file a motion stating what good cause'existed for the lifting of the stay, Plaintiff again raised the “questionable timing” of the filing of the Special Motion to Dismiss, even though that had already been addressed at the hearing for the Special Motion to Dismiss. Argument Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct a deposition is improper and irrelevant both as to the legal standard for the Special Motion to Dismiss, and as to the actual factual background of the matter. The Plaintiff has filed a complaint, with just one count, seeking specific performanceTo: Page 5of 18 ' veoh, 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT): - “'s 1 46176870384 From: Jeson Carte of an alleged coniract for the sale of certain property. Defendant has filed this special motion to dismiss on the basis that there is no contract, nor has there ever been a contract, for the sale of the property. The question for review by this court is whether there was an actual contract in place for the sale of the property. As noted previously in Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss, filed with this Court on or about June 16, 2017, the Court shall dissolve a Memorandum of Lis Pendens and dismiss the claims upon which it is based if such claims are fiivolous. Claims are frivolous within the meaning of the statute if they fail any of the following three standards: “(1) It is utterly devoid of any reasonably factual support; (2) it is devoid of any arguable basis in law; or (3) the action or claim is subject to dismissal based on a valid legal defense such as statute of frauds.” M.G.L. c. 184, § 15, Looking to the third standard, regarding the Statute of Frauds, where a Defendant raises the Statute of Prauds as a defense, “the party seeking performance under the alleged coitract bears the burden of proof of its existence.” STover v. Carpenter, 2016 WL 54899, citing Canney v, New England Yel. & Tel. Co., 353 Mass. 158, 164 (1967). Here, Defendant’s motion for leave to conduct discovery doesn’t seek to obtain facts relevant to the existence of the alleged contract. Instead, the request already assumes the existence of said contract. Whether or not something occurred.which calised Defendant to “back out” of an alleged agreement is complétely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was an actual agreement in existence in the first place. Looking to the second standard, regarding whether there is an arguable basis in law. for the lis pendens, the review must be-as to the actual elements ofa contract. As noted in the Special Motion to Dismiss, contract formation requires there to be a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange. Sitwation Mgmt. Sys. Ine. v. Maiouf, Tne, 430To: Page 6 of 18 . 2017-07-17 19:06:00: (GMT) 4 “4 (46176870384, From: Jason Carte Mass. 875, 878, 724 N.E.2d 699 (2000). Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 1701) (1981). “The manifestation of mutual assent between contracting parties generally consists of an offer by one and the acceptance of it by the other. J & R Mechanical, Ine. v. Hazelton Mg. Co., 62. Mass.App.Ct. 452, 454-455 (2004), citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts, at § 22(1). “An offer ripens into a binding contract when it is accepted. Acceptance occurs when the offeree gives the return requested in the offer.” Jc/, citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts, at § 50(1). Plaintiff's request for the deposition does not seek facts related to any of those élements of a contract. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that there was acceptance of the offer. Plaintiff is not seeking facts as to the acceptance of the offer, but rather facts related to the : Defendant’s decision to “back out” of the alleged contract. . Finally, even if the Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct a deposition of Paul Anastasio were to somehow bear some sort of relevance to the question before this court for this motion, the request fails as to the first standard in a Special Motion to Dismiss- the factual basis. Plaintiff clainis in his request for leave to conduct the discovery that further inquiry is necessary because, “Plaintiff believes that there was some change in circumstances involving Mr. Anastasio’s ability to obtain a liquor license for a for-profit corporation to be operated out of the- premises that are in dispute in this case and that this was his motivation to not honor his agreement.” This statement, however, contradicts the facts which the Plaintiff himself ‘has sei forth in his complaint. According to an article from Wicked Local Holbrook, dated September 15, Paul Anastasio is quoted as saying on September 7, 2016, “We will probably 'pul! the , building off the market next week when the contract expires, and the Liberty Publik House will open in about three weeks.” See attached Exhibit A. This article was attached as Exhibit E to Plaintiff's original complaint, filed with this court on or about December 13, 2016, and attachedTo, Page 7 of 18 ia ‘ . 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT), * : 18176870384 Front Jason Cart as Bxhibit | to Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss. This quote from Mr. Anastasio is approximately one week prior to Plaintiff's first written offer for the purchase of ‘the property, Clearly, there was already in place a plan to move forward with opening the Publik House. Itis'worth noting that, even if there were to be an argument that the discovery requested could plausibly be legally relevant for the purposes of this motion, and even if the facts undermining Plaintiff's alleged need for further discovery were to be ignored, the discovery requested by Plaintiff has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying complaint. Plaintiff has filed a complaint with just one count- Specific Performance of a Contract to Purchase Real Estate. The allegation is a simple breach of contract claim. Plaintiff has failed to state how the : discovery requested is necessary to prove a breach of contract claim, because it simply isn't Whether or not a Defendant changed his or her mind regarding a contract is irrelevant to whether or not there was an enforceable contract in the first place. | Conclusion Tn order to overcome Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff must show that there was an enforceable contract for the sale of the property. Quite simply, the Plaintiff. cannot meet this burden. Defendant has provided the affidavit of Paul Anastasio, manager of Defendant, stating relevant facts for the purpose of this motion. Defendant has provided nearly 300 pages of documents to Plaintiff, This Court has given the Plaintiff multiple opportunities to come up with something to support the claim that there was an actual contract for the sale of the property, and Plaintiff has failed to come up with anything substantive. For the reasons outlined in this motion, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Depose Paul Anastasio. Further, for the reasons outlined in’ Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss, Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Further Opposition, andTo: Page 6 of 18 é cos +» 2017-07-17:19:06:00 (GMT, ' 46176870384 From: Jason Carte. “4 wey the reasons outlined in this motion, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to dismiss this complaint, dissolve the Memorandum of Lis Pendens, award Defendant's reasonable attorney's ‘ fees, and award any other such relief as this Court deems just. Respectfully submitted, Paul Anastasio, By Its Attorney, Jason Carter Law Office of Jason Carter 21 McGrath Highway, Suite 501 Quincy, MA 02169 (617) 942-0892 BBO# 678176 jason@jasoncarterlaw.com Date: July 17, 2017To, Page Sof 18 : . 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) 18176870384 From: Jéson:CarteTo: Page 10 0f 18 * ‘23/2017 ‘ ca) 2017-07-47,19:06:00 (GMT) aa "16176870384 From: Jason Carter Publik House moves ita Holbrokc Léon , hoa? ee wiExen HOLBROOK Publik House moves into Holbrook Legion Thursday Posted Sep 15, 2016-at 2:18 PM By Jeanne M. Rideout The building at 777 Plymouth St. will have a new club and manager, but remain the William B. Dalton American Legion Post 137. Coming soon is the Liberty Publik House, replacing the Dalton Club. os “Tt still remains a veterans club and a veterans organization,” incoming manager | Paul Anastasio told Holbrook selectmen Sept. 7. “It’s still a Legion post. The name change is to draw in new members.” The selectmen voted unanimously to approve the change of manager and name change from Dalton Club to Liberty Poblik House. An expanded membership is key to removing the “for sale” sign on the front lawn and retaining the Dalton Post in Holbrook. The newly remodeled post is now temporarily closed. Faced with a large building with a large overhead, selling the post was an option the building association explored and will probably soon abandon. . “Selling was one of our contingency plans,” Anastasio said after the meeting.* The post’s new image and new potential to attract members likely will change, this plan. “We will probably pull the building off the market next week when the contract - expires, and the Liberty Publik House will open in about three weeks,” Anastasio said. “We're hoping to draw in a larger membership. That's why it is important to rebrand. It's going to be great. We hope to round up the veteran community and become a hub for veterans on the South Shore.” hitpu¢holbr ook.wickediocal.comMews/2016091 S/publik-house-moves-Inte-holbroolclegion ” waTo: Page 11 of 18 . . . 201 7-07-47 19:06:00 (GMT) ‘ 16176870384 . From: -dason Carte. suo? . Me “Publi House moves rte Heleronk Legion Membership in the post is open to veterans and family members. The Ladies Auxiliary and Sons of the.American Legion welcomes women and men whose parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, sibling, or dependent served in the military. , The Dalton Post traditionally features a bar and grill, darts, pool, trivia, sports, country dance and live entertainment. http/holbrock.wickedlocal .com/news/2016D915!publik-hous e-moves-into-holbrook-legion . . 22To. Page 120F18 .. , + 2017-07-17 19:08:00 (GMT) AIBITTo; Page 13 0f 18 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) “s 16176870384..Froth: Jason Carte COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss NORFOLK SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 1682CV01564 JOHN TASSINARI, JR. Plaintiff Vv. BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF THE WM. B. DALTON AMERICAN LEGION, INC., I, Jason Carter, hereby state the following based upon my personal knowledge: we Sm ee Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF JASON CARTER 1. Tam an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and I am now and have been in good standing. . My firm, Law Office of Jason Carter, has been retained by the Defendant in the above- referenced matter. . The document attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the article J downloaded from the website, “Wicked Local Holbrook” at hitp://holbrook.wickedlocal.c: on or about May 25, 2017. This is the same article which was attached as Exhibit E to Plaintiff's Complaint, filed with this Court on or about December 13, 2016, and Exhibit 1... of Defendant’s Special Motion to Dismiss, filed with this Court on or about June 16, 2017.To: Page14of18 => na ~ | 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT), “a ops). 46176870384 Frém: Jason Carte . Hea . : spe “ 1 : Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury: July 17, 2017 fason CarterTo: Page 1§0f18 =. ty mh . 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT). | 16176870384 From: Jason Carte : . oan CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jason Carter, hereby certify that on July 17,2017 I served a copy of the enclosed documents, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to: Sean Began Zero Governors Avenue, Unit 33 Medford, MA 02155To. Page 16 0f'18 2017-07-17 19:06:00(GMT) of 16176870384 ‘From: Jason Carter . ‘ . . 7 ‘ aa wt hb Loh ‘ : me a “ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, SS NORFOLK SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 1682CV01564 JOHN TASSINARI, JR. Plaintiff Vv. BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF THE WM. B. DALTON AMERICAN LEGION, INC, We Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF SACHA ANASTASIO L, Sacha Anastasio, hereby state the following based upon my personal knowledge: 1. Lwas the listing agent for the Defendant in the negotiations regarding the potential sale of the property which is the subject of this litigation. 2. 1am over the age of 18, and competeut to testify as to the matters herein. 3. Ireceived two written offers for the purchase of the property. 4. The document attached as Exhibit A to Defendant’s previously filed Response to Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the first offer I received on behalf of Plaintiff. 5. The documents attached as Exhibit C. to Defendant’s previously filed Response to Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the second offer I. received on behalf of Plaintiff. 6. I had numerous email conversations with Bob Humphreys, the broker for the Plaintiff in this action.To: Page 17 of 18 10. I. 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT). 4 "46176870384 ‘Frony: Jason Carte “ ee Upon request from Defendant’s counsel, | forwarded multiple emails to Defendant’s counsel reflecting the conversations. The documents attached as Exhibit B of Defendant's previously filed Response to Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 14, 2016, Which I forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016. The documents attached as Exhibit D of Defendant’s previously filed Response to * Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 20, 2016, which I. forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016 The documents attached as Exhibit E of Defendant’s previously filed Response ‘o Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 23, 2016, which I forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016 The documents attached as Exhibit F of Defendant’s previously filed Response to Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 25, 2016, which 1 forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016 12, The documents attached as Exhibit G of Defendant’s previously filed Response to . Further Opposition to Special Motion to Dismiss is a true and accurate copy of the email conversation between Bob Humphreys and myself on September 29, 2016, which I forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Attorney Jason Carter, on December 19, 2016To: Page 18 of 18 ty ‘ - 2017-07-17 19:06:00 (GMT) ° - 5 16176870384 From:iJason Carter Signed under -tlie pains and pevialiies of perjury* July 14, 2017 ‘Sicha Anastasio”