Suffolk University Law School, JD
Massachusetts, 1995
U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts
U.S. Court of Appeals 1st Circuit
Reported Cases
In LeGrice v. Harrington et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88016 (D. Mass. 2010), Mr. Perry represented a Brockton Police Sergeant in federal civil rights claims against the Police Chief and former Mayor of the City of Brockton. Sergeant LeGrice claimed that in retaliation for his support of a mayoral candidate, the Mayor and Police Chief improperly changed the conditions of his employment, among other things assigning him to inferior shifts which limited his earning capacity.
In Humphey v. Pietryka, 25 Mass. L. Rep. 169 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2009), Mr. Perry defended a lawsuit brought against his client by owners of adjoining land. Mr. Perry filed and won a Special Motion to Dismiss under G.L. c. 231, Sec. 59H and the Court awarded his client attorneys fees under the statute.
In BG Strategic Advisors, Inc. v. Gemini Investors, Inc., 74 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2009) (Unpublished), Mr. Perry represented a business consultant in commercial contract claims. The case was argued before a panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court and decided on June 26, 2009.
In Shammas v. Acclinet Corporation et al., 2009 Mass. App. Unpub. Lexis 603 (Mass. App. Ct. July 10, 2009) (Unpublished), Mr. Perry successfully defended a $12 million lawsuit brought by a corporation and business trust against former employees and their new employer. Mr. Perry won the appeal and the case was dismissed against his clients.
In Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications L.P., et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83435 (D. Mass. Sept. 10, 2009), Mr. Perry represented a class member in a class action arising out of the installation of fiber optic cable on railroad rights of way by four of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies. Mr. Perry’s client objected to the purported class settlement and argued that the Court in Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction to confirm the settlement. The Court agreed and dismissed the case, the precise result sought by the firm’s client.
In Bates v. Kender et al., 537 F. Supp.2d 281 (D. Mass. 2008), Mr. Perry prosecuted a federal jury trial in which Mr. Perry’s client alleged devastating injuries resulting from gunshot wounds to his back. The claim was for excessive use of force by police officers during an arrest that violated the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.
In Pietryka v. Humphrey et al, (2008WL1851045) (Mass. Land Court 2008) (Unpublished/Reported only on Westlaw), Mr. Perry represented a landowner regarding easement rights and a lot line dispute. Mr. Perry successfully defended a claim for additional land by his client’s opponent at trial before a judge of the Massachusetts Land Court.
In Courtemanche v. Beijing Restaurant et al., 490 F. Supp.2d 107 (D. Mass. 2007), Mr. Perry prosecuted a wrongful death case in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In this case, the Plaintiff’s decedent was struck and killed by a drunk driver after leaving a bar. The defendants included the bar at which both the driver and victim had their last drink.
In Gav-Stra Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin’ Donuts, Gavriel et al., 450 Mass. 1109 (2007) and Gav-Stra Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin’ Donuts, Gavriel et al., 70 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 (2007), Mr. Perry represented a shareholder in a Dunkin’ Donut franchise in a close corporation freeze-out claim. Mr. Perry’s six figure judgment in favor of his client after trial was upheld by both the Massachusetts Appeals Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
In Harden Manufacturing Corp. et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. et al., 433 F. Supp.2d 172 (D. Mass. 2006), Mr. Perry represents a plaintiff in multi-district litigation involving product liability claims stemming from the sale of the drug Neurontin. Prior to this civil suit, Warner Lambert pleaded guilty to criminal health care fraud charges regarding Neurontin that were brought by the United States Attorney in Boston. Warner Lambert was sentenced to pay a $240 million criminal fine at the time, the second largest criminal fine ever imposed in a health care fraud prosecution.
In Bjorgolffson v. Destination Boston Hotel, Inc. et al, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 419, 2006 WL 2623925 (Mass.Super. 2006), Mr. Perry represented a rape victim in a case against a hotel and bar. Mr. Perry successfully defeated a motion for summary judgment brought by the hotel, arguing that the hotel was vicariously liable for the criminal acts of its employee.
In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. et al. v. First Trident Construction Corp. et al., 2005 WL 2461972 (Mass. Super. 2005) (Unpublished/Reported only on Westlaw), Mr. Perry defended a trustee of a business trust who signed certain promissory notes in his capacity as trustee, but had judgments entered against him in his personal capacity. Mr. Perry successfully overturned the Court’s prior orders and the judgment entered against the trustee in his individual capacity was vacated.
In Micro Signal Research, Inc. v. Otus et al., 417 F.3d 28 (1st Cir 2005), Mr. Perry successfully prosecuted claims in United States federal court in Massachusetts involving an internet scam operated out of California. After obtaining an injunction, a real estate attachment and a bank attachment for his client in federal court in Boston, Mr. Perry won the appeal of the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
In Rooney v. Walt Disney World Co., 2003 WL 22937728 (D. Mass. November 25 2003) (Unpublished/Reported only on Westlaw), Mr. Perry defeated Disney’s efforts to dismiss and/or remove litigation brought against it in Massachusetts to a friendlier forum in Orlando, Florida. The underlying claim involved a serious accident at one of Disney’s Orlando properties.
In Coakley Landfill Group v. IT Corporation, 116 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.N.H. 2002)(trial counsel only), Mr. Perry was on a jury trial team that successfully defeated claims brought against the client regarding the building of a multi-million dollar landfill project in New Hampshire.
In CCBN.COM v. C-CALL.COM, 73 F. Supp.2d 106 (D. Mass. 1999), Mr. Perry represented a domain name and service mark holder that provided on-line stock market information and financial services to investment professionals. The dispute involved claims of consumer confusion in violation of the federal Lanham Act.
In Haggard v. Capital One Financial Corporation, 201 F.3d 427 (Table/Unpublished Disposition), 1999 WL 1319003 (1st Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the dismissal of a claim under the Fair Credit Billing Act that Mr. Perry had won for his client, Capital One, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.