He sued the City for alleged violations of federal and state civil rights statutes by blocking for more than 10 years his attempts to build a single-family residence in the middle of a block in a densely populated neighborhood.
After a two-week trial, the jury found five City of Quincy officials and Conservation Commission members individually liable for civil rights violations on account of denial of the constitutional right to equal protection for obstructing our client. We successfully argued that our client’s property was indistinguishable from other adjacent and nearby properties which were allowed to build, and that the stated reasons for denial were illegally “pre-textual.”
The jury also found the Conservation Administrator liable for violations of substantive due process.
The complaint as originally filed was against thirteen present or former Quincy officials or Commission members. The City of Quincy was later added as a defendant.
After the close of pre-trial discovery, all defendants filed a comprehensive motion for summary judgment, arguing that they enjoyed qualified immunity against our client’s claims and that our clients were made too late and were barred by the statute of limitations.
The Superior Court allowed the motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the claims against the City and the defendants in their official capacities, and denied it against the remaining defendants in their individual capacities.
The jury found five of the defendants liable and five of the defendants not liable. The cases against three of the defendants were dismissed voluntarily before the case went to the jury.
The final Judgment, with attorneys’ fees and interest, is more than $1.3 million. The jury awarded damages of $433,000.00, including punitive damages of $13,000.00, and the Court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $566,645.00, and more than $301,000.00 in interest has accrued.
Michael J. O’Neill was trial counsel.
The Conservation Commission had denied our client’s Notice of Intent in June 2004. Our client successfully appealed that denial under the State Wetland Protection Act to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. MassDEP heard that appeal and approved the project in February 2005.
Our client also had appealed the denial under the Quincy Wetlands Ordinance to Norfolk Superior Court. In March 2006, the Norfolk Superior Court remanded the case to the Quincy Conservation Commission. However, despite numerous requests by our client’s then-counsel, the Commission never held a further hearing. After our client retained us, Mr. O’Neill filed a Motion in Norfolk Superior Court on account of the Commission’s failure to hold the hearing.
In January 2008, the Norfolk Superior Court allowed the Motion and entered a Judgment declaring our client’s project approved under the Quincy Wetlands Ordinance. The Court also stated in its ruling that the Commission offered no reason, other than animosity toward Plaintiff, for not scheduling the matter for hearing. This was a key piece of evidence at the civil rights jury trial.
Other key evidence was that many of the Commission’s findings with respect to wetland resource areas that it found were present on our client’s properties were contradicted by its simultaneous or nearly simultaneous findings concerning adjacent and nearby properties that the same resource areas were not present.
Final Judgment on the jury verdict was entered on July 24, 2017. The Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, for a New Trial, and for Remittitur, which was denied by the Court on September 25, 2017. Defendants have recently filed a Notice of Appeal.
