Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

08-10663 - Depianti et al v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
08-10663 - Depianti et al v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
August 31, 2012
PDF | More
Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The following questions of law are certified to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, pursuant to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:03: a) Whether a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §150 by filing a complaint with the Attorney General deprives a court of jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's claims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §§148, 148B, and 150, and under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, §§1 and 1A. b) Whether and how to apply the "right to control test" for vicarious liability to the franchisor-franchisee relationship. See Coworx, 2007 WL 738913, at *5. c) Whether a defendant may be liable for employee misclassification under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §148B, where there was no contract for service between the plaintiff and defendant. In addition, this court welcomes the guidance of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on any other questions of Massachusetts law deemed material to this case. 2. The Clerk of the Court shall forward to the Supreme Judicial Court, under the official seal of this Court, copies of this Memorandum and Order, and the entire record of this case. 3. The defendant's Motion for Reconsideration or Stay of the September 9, 2011 Order in Light of Principles of Res Judicata (Docket No. 124) is DENIED. 4. The defendant's Motion for Leave to Refile Docket Entry No. 66 (Docket No. 150) is DENIED. 5. The court is DEFERRING consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 145). 6. This case is STAYED pending a response to the certified questions from the Supreme Judicial Court.(Hohler, Daniel)
August 22, 2014
PDF | More
Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 145) is DENIED. 2. JPI's Motion to File Supplemental Answer/Affirmative Defenses Identifying Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) and Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel) as Additional Defenses (Docket No. 165) is ALLOWED. JPI's Proposed Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Docket No. 165-1) shall be deemed to be the operative answer to the Complaint. 3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 68) is DENIED. 4. JPI's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 65) ("JPI's Motion") is ALLOWED in part and DENIED is part, as follows: a) JPI's Motion is ALLOWED as to Counts I, II, III, and V. b) JPI's Motion is DENIED as to the element of Count IV alleging that the terms of Depianti's contract with BME were inherently unfair, without prejudice to consideration at a later date of an argument that this claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. c) JPI's Motion is ALLOWED as to all other element of Count IV. d) JPI's Motion is DENIED as to Count VI, without prejudice to consideration at a later date of an argument that no relief may be granted to Depianti under this equitable count because an adequate remedy is available to him at law. 5. On January 13, 2010, JPI filed a Motion to Strike Steven Cumbow's Supposed Expert Report from the Summary Judgment Record (Docket No. 81). To the extent that this motion has not yet been decided, it is MOOT, because the court has not found Mr. Cumbow's report to be material to the instant decision.(Hohler, Daniel)
September 13, 2016
PDF | More
Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:It is hereby Ordered that: 1) The Plaintiffs Motion to Sever and Transfer Out-of-State Claims (Dkt. No. 197) is ALLOWED. 2) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the claims of Plaintiffs Gloria Roman, Juan Aguilar, and Gerald Vasquez are SEVERED from all other claims. 3) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 4) The Plaintiffs Assented-To Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Their Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 202) is MOOT. (Franklin, Yvonne)