Opinion
1684CV01432BLS2
07-25-2018
WILDLANDS TRUST OF SOUTHEASTERN MASSCHUSETTS, INC. et al. v. CEDAR HILL RETREAT CENTER, INC. et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING WILDLANDS TRUST’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Kenneth W. Salinger, Justice of the Superior Court
Two months ago the Court decided a motion for summary judgment filed by the Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts. The Court allowed the motion in part to the extent that Wildlands Trust was seeking declaratory relief regarding the meaning and scope of the disputed conservation restriction. The Court denied the motion to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking permanent injunctive relief.
As the Court explained in its prior ruling, summary judgment is inappropriate where, as here, a reasonable factfinder would be free to render a verdict for either side, depending on whether it chooses to draw a reasonable inference that favors the plaintiff or whether it chooses to draw an opposite but still reasonable inference that favors the defendants. See Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 811-12 (1991) ("Where a jury can draw opposite inferences from the evidence, summary judgment is improper"); Dennis v. Kaskel, 79 Mass.App.Ct. 736, 741 (2011) (summary judgment may not be granted where "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party" (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Wildlands Trust has now moved for reconsideration. It argues that no trial is needed to resolve the prayers for injunctive relief because its summary judgment motion on those issues was supported by "conclusive, undisputed evidence."
Although the material facts are not in dispute, it does not automatically follow that the Court can resolve this matter on a motion for summary judgment. "Undisputed facts do not always point unerringly to a single, inevitable conclusion. And when facts, though undisputed, are capable of supporting conflicting yet plausible inferences-inferences that are capable of leading a rational factfinder to different outcomes in a litigated matter depending on which of them the factfinder draws-then the choice between those inferences is not for the court on summary judgment." In re Varrasso, 37 F.3d 760, 764 (1st Cir. 1994). "Summary judgment can only be ordered when a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Dolloff v. Sch. Comm. of Methuen, 9 Mass.App.Ct. 502, 505 (1980).
The summary judgment record in this case does not unambiguously establish that either side is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law on the requests for injunctive relief. To the contrary, the significance of the facts, and whether they show that Cedar Hill has violated the conservation restriction, is hotly disputed.
ORDER
Plaintiff Wildlands Trust’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s recent summary judgment decision is DENIED. Defendant Cedar Hill’s cross motion for sanctions is also DENIED.