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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

09-11605 - Noonan v. Staples, Inc. et al

Download Files


Document in Context
09-11605 - Noonan v. Staples, Inc. et al
April 5, 2010
PDF | More
Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM : The defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings unless Baitler or Wilkinson was acting with malice when publishing their otherwise defamatory statements. The trial of the 2006 complaint does not resolve this issue. Moreover, the existence of malice is at least plausible given the fact that by September 2009 Noonan had caused Staples a great deal of expense and had caused Baitler some personal inconvenience.Recognizing this, Staples here mounts the frontal assault on the constitutionality of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 231, section 92 that it omitted in defending the 2006 complaint. Although properly put on notice, see Defendants Notice of Constitutional Challenge to State Statute Doc. No. 14, the Massachusetts Attorney General has not appeared to defend the statute.Invalidating a state law (or any law for that matter) on constitutional grounds is a matter of profound importance, not lightly to be undertaken. The Court will, therefore, after further reflection, address this matter in a separate memorandum.(Paine, Matthew)