Service For You, Your Business,
And Your Life, At Your Level

Guidance from an accessible attorney who is ready to meet your needs.

  1. Home
  2.  » Significant Cases

Significant Cases

This is a sample of cases where Attorney Salinger has represented the successful litigant.

Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 2016-J-0060 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2017) (Non-litigant Spouse has a legitimate expectation of privacy in production of joint tax return).

Boston Car Keys, Inc. v. Car Keys, Inc. 15-84CV-01493 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2015) (preliminary Injunction granted to corporate trademark owner to enjoin competitor’s use of similar mark).

Packaging Partners LLC v. Pilothouse Packaging LLC 2014-P-1192 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2014) (attorney fee award to client after trial upheld by state appeals court).

Taylor v. Cold Spring Green, LLC et al. 12-81-CV-03013, Massachusetts Superior Court (2014) (Preliminary Injunction granted and jury verdict in favor of plaintiff arising from purchase of home).

Turin, Trustee of the Turin Family Trust v. Bengloff, 12-81-CV-04208 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2014) (Summary Judgment granted to real estate brokers alleged to have concealed hidden conditions from home buyer).

Smart Planner Suite, LLC v. Marchex, Inc., 15:1114 (2014) (United States District Court, District of Massachusetts) (Trademark Infringement Suit resulting in settlement)

Wash Safe Industries, Inc. v. Eco Outlet, LLC 14-CV-12424-PBS (United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2014) (Trademark Dress Infringement Suit resulting in settlement)

Amin v. Officer, 13-84-CV-01403 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2013) (Court granted injunction and attachment against defendants alleged to have defrauded plaintiff. After judgment entered for plaintiff, the district court in supplementary process [14-09-SP-70, 2014] ordered defendants/judgment debtors to transfer title in a house to the judgment creditor/plaintiff).

Indigo America v. Big Impressions, 597 F.3d 1 (2010) (1st Cir. 2010) (default against unrepresented single member corporation reversed by federal appeals court).

Mack v. Paradigm Properties, et al., SUCV2002-04812 (Suffolk Superior Court 2006) (jury verdict for businessman assaulted on defendant’s property)., Inc. v. McCracken, 312 F.Supp.2d 82 (Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Massachusetts, 2004) (Attorneys who had represented predecessor corporation of plaintiff were not disqualified from representing defendants).

Shephard v. Bay Windows, 01-0284-E, 2003 WL 22225764 (Suffolk Superior Court 2003) (Summary Judgment denied to Newspaper alleged to have defamed plaintiff. Case later settled and paper published front page retraction).

Sample Settlements Achieved Without Resort to Litigation*

*Due to the confidentiality provisions of these settlement agreements, the parties cannot be named.

1. The client’s elderly parent was assaulted in a nursing home by another nursing home patient. Following a demand letter and negotiation, the nursing home settled with the client paying six figures.

2. A woman’s disability benefits were canceled because the insurer did not recognize the validity of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Following a demand letter and negotiations, the insurer restored the benefits.

3. A homeowner paid a substantial advance sum to a national contractor for a home improvement project. The original management tram was replaced and the contractor performed substandard work — ultimately abandoning the job. Following a demand letter and negotiations, the contractor reimbursed the homeowner the contract price, and the homeowner was allowed to retain the work and materials that had already been installed.

4. A high level executive was discharged by his company less than 2 weeks before his stock options were to vest. The company offered only 6 weeks of severance and an already-earned bonus. Following negotiations, the company agreed to increase the severance pay to 12 weeks, to reinstate the stock, to retire the executive’s corporate credit card debt and to waive the covenant not to compete provision of the original employment agreement.

5. A company engaged in on-line retail retained a packaging company to produce packaging for the product. The packaging wasn’t sized correctly and it arrived late. The packaging company refused to remedy the situation unless the client paid additional fees, claiming that the client had accepted the packaging and had waited too long to complain. Following a demand letter and negotiations, the packaging company reimbursed the client in full.

6. A company refused to pay the finder’s fee to a professional recruitment and staffing company claiming that the employee placed by the staffing company had committed an accounting error several months into her employment. Following a demand letter and negotiations, the company agreed to pay the client’s finder fee plus attorney’s fees.

7. A commercial laundromat in a strip mall withheld rent because the landlord allowed a competitor to rent space in the same area of the mall. Even though the landlord and the tenant did not have a written agreement, the tenant alleged bad faith on the part of the landlord. Following a demand letter and negotiations, the landlord forgave back rent and allowed the tenant stay several extra months rent-free prior to vacating.

8. An artist lost significant tools of trade in a studio fire. The insurer refused to cover the claim on the grounds that the materials were not covered under the policy and could not be valued. Following a demand letter and negotiations, the insurer agreed to pay a significant sum for the loss.

9. An elderly couple who did not speak English as a first language claimed that they were pressured to sign an expensive home improvement contract as a result of over-aggressive and unethical sales tactics. Even though the time for cancelling the contract, clearly stated in the document, had expired following a demand letter and negotiations, the home improvement contractor agreed to cancel the contract and refund the couple’s money.

10. A moving company with a state-registered trademark discovered that a competitor was using a nearly-identical trademark. Following a demand letter, the competitor removed the trademark from its website and ceased all use of it.