Commonwealth of Massachusetts County of Middlesex. The Superior Court CIVIL DOCKET#: MICV2014-08639-B RE: Mitchell v Town of Wakefield TO: Thomas A Mullen, Esquire Thomas A Mullen PC 40 Salem Street, Suite 12 Lynnfield, MA 01940 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRY You are hereby notified that on 12/23/2014 the following entry was made on the above referenced docket: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Which See 4 Pages) ORDER - Robert Mitchell's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED, and his Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Request for Equitable Relief is dismissed. (Robert L. Ullmann, Justice dated 12/22/14) copies sent Dated at Wobum, Massachusetts this 23rd day of December, 2014. Michael A. Sullivan, Clerk of the Courts BY: Patricia McCann Assistant Clerk Telephone: 781-939-2748 Disabled individuals who need handicap accommodations should contact the Administrative Office of the Superior Court at (617) 788-8130 cvsenas 2 we 4%2872 eno mecoenpCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. Oe SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2014-08639 ROBERT MITCHELL, Plaintiff, vs. TOWN OF WAKEFIELD, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The plaintiff, Robert Mitchell (“Mitchell”), a resident of the defendant Town of Wakefield (the “Town”, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Request for Equitable Relief, and moved for a preliminary injunction. Mitchell alleges that the Town acted in bad faith in refusing to permit a vote on his motion to adjoum a Town Meeting, and therefore a vote at that meeting should be voided by this Court, The Court held a hearing on December 19, 2014. For the below reasons, Mitchell's motion for a preliminary injunction must be DENIED, and his complaint dismissed. RELEVANT FACTS Mitchell challenges the action of William H. Carroll (“Carroll”), who has been Town Moderator since 2000, in not holding a vote to adjourn the November 17,2014 Town Meeting, and the resulting vote to indefinitely postpone Article 12 of the Town Meeting warrant (“Article 12”). In response to Mitchell’s motion, the Town submitted an affidavit of Moderator Carroll (the “Carroll Affidavit”). The undisputed portions of theCaroll Affidavit establish that, at the Town Meeting, Mitchell made a “point of order” and stated that he wanted to adjourn the Town Meeting; Carroll responded that to adjourn the meeting Mitchell would have to make a motion; Mitchell sat down; a motion for indefinite postponement of Article 12 was properly made; 45 minutes of debate followed on the motion; no motion to adjourn was made during the debate; after all persons who wished to be recognized had spoken, Caroll called for a vote; by a vote of 119 to 59, Article 12 was indefinitely postponed. Carroll Affidavit $¥ 2(¢)-2(j). DISCUSSION A. The Legal Standard for a Preliminary Injunction Under the well-established test of Packaging Industries Group v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 617 (1980), a preliminary injunction is warranted only when the moving party establishes both a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, and a substantial risk of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Once these factors are established, the Court must balance them against the harm that an injunction will inflict on the opposing party, and must also consider the impact on the public interest. See T & D Video, Inc., v. City of Revere, 423 Mass. 577, 580 (1996). In the context of a motion for preliminary injunetion, the “rights which may be irreparably lost are those not capable of vindication by a final judgment, rendered either at Law or in equity.” Packaging, Industries, 380 Mass. at 617, n. 11 (additional citation omitted). B. Application of the Legal Standard Mitchel!’s motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied on the merits of his claim. It has long been Massachusetts law that actions of a town moderator at a town meeting are beyond judicial review, except in instances of dishonesty or bad faith. SeeDoggett v. Hooper, 306 Mass. 129, 131 (1940). The “judgment of the moderator made in good faith, even if mistaken, [is] not subject to review by the court.” Id. at 133, The undisputed evidence before this Court indicates that Moderator Caroll in good faith did his best to comply with Robert’s Rules of Order, and it further appears that he did comply. ‘The Court further notes that the harm that would result from voiding the Town Meeting vote on Article 12 significantly outweighs the harm that results to Mitchell and other Wakefield residents from keeping in place the vote. Voiding a town meeting vote ‘would be extraordinary judicial action that would not only impose a significant burden on the Town, but also could potentially undermine the town meeting process. In contrast, keeping the vote in place, if the vote has future consequences that violate the rights of Mitchel! or other Town residents, these residents can take future action to protect their rights ‘The Court recognizes that Robert’s Rules of Order are technical, and at times they may be frustrating. However, in general terms, the interference with town democracy that would result from voiding town meeting votes far outweighs any interference with, town democracy that may sometimes result from a technical application of those rules. Although the motion heard by the Court on December 19, 2014 was a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court’s resolution of that motion disposes of the relief sought by Mitchell in his Complaint,ORDER Robert Mitchell’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED, and his ‘Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Request for Equitable Relief is dismissed. Dated: December “¥}, 2014 Tubtice of the Superior Court SEO? Qeeente dB, DoryCommonwealth of Massachusetts County of Middlesex Superior Court MIDDLESEX, SS. 3 CIVIL DOCKET# MICV2014-08639 — Robert Mitchell, Plaintiff vs Town of Wakefield, Defendant JUDGMENT This action came on for hearing on December 19, 2014, before the Court, Robert L. Ullmann, Justice, presiding, on the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, itis ORDERED and ADJUDGED: The Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is Denied and his Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Request for Equitable Relief be and hereby is Dismissed. Dated at Woburn, Massachusetts this 23rd day of December, 2014. Michael A. Sullivan, Clerk of the Courts ae) ( Feet COS Onn Assistant Clerk