COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
|
WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN, Complainant,
v.
MATTEL, INC., et al,
Respondents.
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) |
MCAD CASE NO. 99-BEM-2634 |
RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
After numerous frivolous motions to default, a motion to strike and a motion for sanctions, the Complainant, William
Silverstein ("Silverstein") without permission has attempted to file a Superior Court action pursuant to G.L.c. 15lB §9 based on
the same facts alleged here. Due to Silverstein's continuing frivolous actions, Respondents respectfully request that the
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (the "Commission") award the Respondents their costs and attorneys'
fees incurred in responding to these multiple motions, as permitted by 804 CMR 1.09(d). In support hereof, Respondents
state:
- Silverstein filed this action on September 27, 1999. At the suggestion of the Investigator, the Respondents filed a
Request for a More Definite Statement ("the Request").
- The Respondents however were unable to distinguish
between the instant Complaint and Silverstein's 1997 Complaint filed with the Commission. The Request sought to have
Silverstein clarify the exact nature of his allegations in this
action, including the basis for Silverstein's assertion that this action does not arise from the same facts as his 1997
discrimination claim. At the Investigative Conference, the
Commission instructed Silverstein to submit a more definite
statement.
- Despite the fact that the Commission allowed the Request, Silverstein filed a series of motions charging that the
Request was "frivolous and abusive":
- Cross-Motion to Default the Respondents, dated May
19, 2000 (filed in connection with Opposition to
Respondents' Request for More Definite Statement)
("Motion to Default I");
- Motion for to Default Respondents [sic.], undated
(received in June 2000) ("Motion to Default II") at
page 2("I respectfully implore the Commission [sic.]
enforce their own regulations");
- Motion for Sanctions Against Respondents' Attorney
in Accordance with 804 C.M.R. 1.09(d), undated
(received in June 2000) ("Motion for Sanctions I")
at page 2 ("I respectfully implore the Commission
[sic.] enforce their own regulations");
- Motion to Default Defendant The Learning Company,
Inc., dated June 1, 2000 ("Motion to Default III")
at page 1 ("I respectfully implore the Commission
[sic.] enforce their own regulations"); and
- Motion to Strike Respondents' Position Statement and
Opposition to Respondents' Opposition to Motion to
Default Respondents dated July 7, 2000 (corrected
copy dated July 10, 2000) ("Motion to Strike") at
page 1 ("I again request that the respondents are
defaulted for their flagrant violation of the MCAD
rules").
The Respondents incurred significant costs and legal fees responding to these frivolous and harassing motions.
- Moreover, despite his pleas that the Commission enforce
its own rules, Silverstein himself ignored the Commission's
regulations in filing a complaint under G.L.c. 15lB § 9.
Specifically, the Commission's regulations require a complainant
to obtain the Commission's permission prior to the initiation of
a civil action under G.L.c. 15lB §9:
After a complaint has been pending before the Commission for
90 days Complainant may file, with the Commissioner having
charge of the matter, notice of the Complainant's intent to
file a complaint pursuant to G.L. 15lB §9, along with a
request that the Commission not initiate a complaint . . . upon the same subject matter, against Respondent. The
Commission retains discretion to grant or deny such a
request.
804 CMR 1.15(2) (b). Silverstein did no such thing. Silverstein
filed William Silverstein v. Microsystems Software, Inc., The
Learninq Company, Inc., and Mattel, Inc., (Middlesex Superior
Court, Civil Action No. 00-3893) on August 22, 2000 and filed an
Amended Complaint on September 20, 2000 - all without the
Commission's permission.
WHEREFORE, the Respondents respectfully requests that the
Commission award the Respondents their costs and attorneys' fees
associated with their response to Silverstein's Complaint and
groundless motions.
|
Respondents, Mattel, Inc., Microsystems Software, Inc., and The Learning Company
By their attorneys,
Laura N. Kling
Irwin B. Schwartz BBO#548763
Laura N. Kling BBO#638313
SCHWARTZ and NYSTROM, LLC
419 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
(617) 421-1800
(617) 421-1810 (fax)
lkling@schwartz-nystrom.com
Dated: November 6, 2000
|