CUBBERLEY v. EGLESON, 11-10844-GAO. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20120327b45
Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2012
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, Jr., District Judge. The pending motions to dismiss (dkt. nos. 12 and 13) are premised on the proposition that the relevant agreements unambiguously foreclose the plaintiff's claims. The agreements are not unambiguous. At the very least, their proper interpretation may be profitably informed by industry custom and practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. The motions are theref
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, Jr., District Judge. The pending motions to dismiss (dkt. nos. 12 and 13) are premised on the proposition that the relevant agreements unambiguously foreclose the plaintiff's claims. The agreements are not unambiguous. At the very least, their proper interpretation may be profitably informed by industry custom and practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. The motions are therefo..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, Jr., District Judge.
The pending motions to dismiss (dkt. nos. 12 and 13) are premised on the proposition that the relevant agreements unambiguously foreclose the plaintiff's claims. The agreements are not unambiguous. At the very least, their proper interpretation may be profitably informed by industry custom and practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. The motions are therefore DENIED.
Prior versions of the present motions (dkt. nos. 8 and 9) were mooted by the filing of the second motions.
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
