Section 18
- Citation
- Section 18
- Parent Document
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-02-11
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
Full Text
968 charsMogilevsky also alleges that “in March 1999 the Defendants (with the exception of Peter Keating and J. Brooks Porter) threatened to file suit or bring counterclaims against the Plaintiff for multiple damages and attorneys fees if he pursued his rights further.”9 (Mogilevsky Amended Complaint ¶¶33, 34.) Mogilevsky contends that the Defendants’ actions fall under threats to take “reprisals” under G.L.c. 186, §1810 and attempting to “intimidate, threaten, or interfere” under G.L.c. 151B, §4 par. 4A.11 Taken as true, Mogilevsky alleges facts that the Defendants violated G.L.c. 186, §18 by threatening to retaliate against him for having made the complaint to BIS and that the Defendants threatened to sue him or bring counterclaims against him because of the complaints he filed with the MCAD, in violation of G.L.c. 15 IB, §4, par. 4A.12 (Id. at ¶47.) As such, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V, threatening to sue for having made the complaint, is denied.