Representative of Paul’s experience are the following cases:
• Secured dismissal of wrongful death action on behalf of hospitality client in Hampden County (Massachusetts) Superior Court, via judgment on the pleadings. John F. Bonafini Personal Representative for the Estate of Michael C. Bonafini vs. G6 Hospitality Property, LLC et al, Hampden Superior Court C.A. No. 1879CV00056 (September 16, 2020). Subsequently, as appellee, successfully defended trial-level judgment to precedent-setting appellate decision through Massachusetts appellate court of last resort. Bonafini v. G6 Hosp. Prop., LLC, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 194 N.E.3d 234 (2022); Bonafini v. G6 Hosp. Prop., LLC, 491 Mass. 1101 (2022).
• Successfully defended against putative class action by removing case to the U.S. District Court under the Class Action Fairness Act and then immediately certifying salient legal question to the Massachusetts appellate court of last resort, which then issued a precedent-setting interpretation of a nineteenth-century notary fee limitation statute based on centuries-old source material. Richardson v. UPS Store, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-cv-12338-ADB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104796 (D. Mass. June 24, 2019); Richardson v. UPS Store, Inc., 486 Mass. 126, 156 N.E.3d 177 (2020).
• Secured early dismissal of federal putative class action, on behalf of international technology company, through argument grounded in choice-of-law analysis. Babeu v. Apple, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-CV-11967-AK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149905 (D. Mass. Aug. 22, 2022).
• On behalf of an international retail establishment, secured defensive judgment on the merits against claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and promissory estoppel, in the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) Superior Court Business Litigation Session. Lululemon USA, Inc. v. -CWB Retail Limited Partnership, Suffolk Superior Court C.A. No. 2084CV00205 (February 19, 2021).
• At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, secured precedent-setting appellate victory (regarding limits of so-called “Burford” abstention) on behalf of a national preschool company, while simultaneously averting imminent pandemic-era eviction. Forty Six Hundred LLC v. Cadence Educ., LLC, 15 F.4th 70 (1st Cir. 2021).
• Secured dismissal on the merits of federal action against international technology company for its alleged participation in government entity’s misconduct through use of its software. Talasazan v. Microsoft Corporation et al, 1:22-cv-11764-DJC (D. Mass., June 21, 2022).
• At the Massachusetts Appeals Court, secured reversal of trial court’s denial of technology company’s motion to compel arbitration, through argument hinging on interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. Cuneo v. Nat'l Delivery Sys., 100 Mass. App. Ct. 1112, 178 N.E.3d 899 2021 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 689 (November 5, 2021).
• Convinced Plaintiff’s attorney to voluntarily dismiss Trafficking Victims Protection Act action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, due to a myriad of legal deficiencies that would otherwise have been exposed via motion to dismiss. Asia Graves v. Marriott International Hotel, Inc. et al., 1:24-CV-10532-DJC (D. Mass., June 11, 2024).