Preview
193
4/22/2021
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT C.A. No.
1667CV01419
SABA HASHEM, individual and as Manager
of D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC
Plaintiff/Defendant-Intervenor
STEPHEN D'ANGELO, individually and as a
Manager of D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC, and
D'Angelo Law Group, LLC,
Defendants/Defendant Intervenor,
Reach and Apply Defendant,
JENNIFER M. CARRION,
Plaintiff-Intervenor.
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE SETTLEMENT
DISCUSSIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND/OR OFFERS OF COMPROMISE FROM
THE JURY
NOW COMES the Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jennifer M. Carrion, who hereby respectfully
moves this Honorable Court to exclude any and all offers of compromise, settlement discussions,
and/or communications by the Defendants. “As is well established, evidence of a compromise
offer is inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.” Filbey v.
Carr, 98 Mass. App.Ct. 455, 457 (2020) citing Morea v. Cosco, Inc., 422 Mass. 601, 603-604,
(1996); Marchand v. Murray, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 611, 615 (1989).
As the Appeals Court in Filby noted: “Section 408(a) of the Massachusetts Guide to
Evidence (2020) also supports our conclusion. It provides the following:
“(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible -- on behalf of any party --
either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim: (1) furnishing, promising,
or offering -- or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept -- a valuable consideration
in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim or any other claim, and (2) conduct or a
statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim.” Filbey, 98 Mass. App. Ct. at
459 citing Section 408(a) of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence.
It is well established that the rule requiring settlement offers or offers to compromise to be
inadmissible “is consistent with “[t]he policy behind [the rule of] encourag[ing] freedom
of discussion with regard to compromise.” Id. at 459-460 citing Affiliated Mfrs., Inc.
v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 56 F.3d 521, 527 (3d Cir. 1995) see also Mass. Guide to Evid. § 408.
Evidence of settlement at bar is not relevant for any other purpose than proving or disproving the
amount or validity of a claim, which demands its exclusion from the Jury. Id.
In addition to the above policy, the Court “may exclude relevant evidence, if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.” Mass.Guide Evid. § 403. Evidence of a purported offer to compromise
can also be used to distract, sidetrack, or confuse a jury and/or inflame their sentiments.
WHEREFORE, for all these reasons, the Plaintiff -Intervenor moves for the relief sought
and that this Court to exclude evidence from the jury of the Defendants’ settlement discussions,
communications, and/or any offers of compromise, and any other relief it deems fair and just.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Plaintiff-Intervenor,
Jennifer M. Carrion
By her Counsel,
/s Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa
___________________________________
Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esquire
Rivera-Bujosa Law, PC
Shipway Place, Suite C2
Charlestown Navy Yard
Boston, Massachusetts 02129
Telephone: (617) 398 – 6728
Facsimile: (617) 398 - 6730
E-mail: Mernaysa@riverabujosalaw.com
BBO no.: 665965
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esq., do herewith certify that I have on this 22 day of April 2021, I
served a copy of the within document by email upon parties and counsel appeared in this action,
to wit: via email and electronic filing upon -
Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq.
Cossingham Law Office, PC
30 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 404
North Andover, MA 01845
tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com
Saba Hashem,
shceh@yahoo.com
318 Broadway Methuen MA 01844
/s Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa
___________________________________
Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esquire
Preview
193 4/22/2021 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT C.A. No. 1667CV01419 SABA HASHEM, individual and as Manager of D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC Plaintiff/Defendant-Intervenor STEPHEN D'ANGELO, individually and as a Manager of D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC, and D'Angelo Law Group, LLC, Defendants/Defendant Intervenor, Reach and Apply Defendant, JENNIFER M. CARRION, Plaintiff-Intervenor. PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND/OR OFFERS OF COMPROMISE FROM THE JURY NOW COMES the Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jennifer M. Carrion, who hereby respectfully moves this Honorable Court to exclude any and all offers of compromise, settlement discussions, and/or communications by the Defendants. “As is well established, evidence of a compromise offer is inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.” Filbey v. Carr, 98 Mass. App.Ct. 455, 457 (2020) citing Morea v. Cosco, Inc., 422 Mass. 601, 603-604, (1996); Marchand v. Murray, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 611, 615 (1989). As the Appeals Court in Filby noted: “Section 408(a) of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence (2020) also supports our conclusion. It provides the following: “(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible -- on behalf of any party -- either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim: (1) furnishing, promising, or offering -- or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept -- a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim or any other claim, and (2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim.” Filbey, 98 Mass. App. Ct. at 459 citing Section 408(a) of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence. It is well established that the rule requiring settlement offers or offers to compromise to be inadmissible “is consistent with “[t]he policy behind [the rule of] encourag[ing] freedom of discussion with regard to compromise.” Id. at 459-460 citing Affiliated Mfrs., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 56 F.3d 521, 527 (3d Cir. 1995) see also Mass. Guide to Evid. § 408. Evidence of settlement at bar is not relevant for any other purpose than proving or disproving the amount or validity of a claim, which demands its exclusion from the Jury. Id. In addition to the above policy, the Court “may exclude relevant evidence, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Mass.Guide Evid. § 403. Evidence of a purported offer to compromise can also be used to distract, sidetrack, or confuse a jury and/or inflame their sentiments. WHEREFORE, for all these reasons, the Plaintiff -Intervenor moves for the relief sought and that this Court to exclude evidence from the jury of the Defendants’ settlement discussions, communications, and/or any offers of compromise, and any other relief it deems fair and just. Respectfully Submitted, The Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jennifer M. Carrion By her Counsel, /s Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa ___________________________________ Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esquire Rivera-Bujosa Law, PC Shipway Place, Suite C2 Charlestown Navy Yard Boston, Massachusetts 02129 Telephone: (617) 398 – 6728 Facsimile: (617) 398 - 6730 E-mail: Mernaysa@riverabujosalaw.com BBO no.: 665965 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esq., do herewith certify that I have on this 22 day of April 2021, I served a copy of the within document by email upon parties and counsel appeared in this action, to wit: via email and electronic filing upon - Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq. Cossingham Law Office, PC 30 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 404 North Andover, MA 01845 tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com Saba Hashem, shceh@yahoo.com 318 Broadway Methuen MA 01844 /s Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa ___________________________________ Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esquire