Hanover v NE Regional Council of Carpenters

467 Mass 587 (2014)

Anti SLAPP law requires dismissal of challenge to Union’s financing suit against town over open shop contract award.

FACTS The Town of Hanover bid a high school construction project to open shop contractors - without requiring that bidders be signatory to trade unions. A subcontractor not involved with the winning bid, filed a bid protest with the Attorney General who found the winning bidder ‘had engaged in fraud’ during prequalification for the bidding process.

Ten taxpayers sued to force the Town to rescind the awarded contract. An Appeals Court permitted the Town to continue the work with the initially awarded contractor. That case was dismissed.

The Town then sued the Carpenters Union alleging abuse of process. The town claimed that the Union financed and controlled the earlier lawsuit. The Town claimed that the named claimants were fewer in number than required and that some of the named plaintiffs did not even consent to the filing being made in their name.

The Union responded by moving to dismiss under the “anti-SLAPP” statute MGL c 231 § 59H. The law protects petitioners who speak up to urge that the government stop developments, when those petitioners get sued by the developers, by granting quick dismissals – under some circumstances. The Union said its acts were protected speech. The town countered that the Union was not a party to the earlier suit and should not have the benefit of the anti-SLAPP law protections. The trial judge refused to throw out the case against the Union leading to the appeal.

ISSUE Does the anti-SLAPP law require dismissal of the case against the Carpenters?

RULING Yes. Dismiss the Town’s abuse of process case against the Union who backed and orchestrated the challenge to the Town’s award of the contract.
REASONS The anti-SLAPP law was enacted to protect activity like petitioning government. To have the protection from the anti-SLAPP law, you need not be a party to a lawsuit. Commencing, maintaining and financing the lawsuit for the named plaintiffs is activity protected by this law.

The case the Carpenters Union brought, through the named plaintiffs it found, was not frivolous; it had arguable merit (the investigation by the Attorney General showed fraud).

Comment -Abuse of process claims are, almost always, themselves abusive.