{"cached_at":"2026-11-07T11:48:13.065665+00:00","cl_docket_id":"4281027","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","id":4281027,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/mad/","court_id":"mad","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/fjc-integrated-database/21228356/","date_created":"2018-11-21T03:30:14.040302-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-27T12:23:21.099346-08:00","dataset_source":9,"office":"3","docket_number":"0530010","origin":1,"date_filed":"2005-01-14","jurisdiction":4,"nature_of_suit":190,"title":"","section":"1332","subsection":"","diversity_of_residence":21,"class_action":null,"monetary_demand":0,"county_of_residence":25003,"arbitration_at_filing":"","arbitration_at_termination":"","multidistrict_litigation_docket_number":"","plaintiff":"MOORE","defendant":"STEARNS","date_transfer":null,"transfer_office":"","transfer_docket_number":"","transfer_origin":"","date_terminated":"2005-10-13","termination_class_action_status":null,"procedural_progress":5,"disposition":13,"nature_of_judgement":null,"amount_received":0,"judgment":null,"pro_se":0,"year_of_tape":2006,"nature_of_offense":"","version":null,"circuit":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/ca1/","district":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/mad/"},"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/2592/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.531165-07:00","date_modified":"2022-02-04T14:18:27.282840-08:00","source":9,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Michael A. Ponsor","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2021-01-20T07:48:26.616250-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2005-01-14","date_terminated":"2005-10-13","date_last_filing":"2005-10-13","case_name_short":"Moore","case_name":"Moore v. Stearns","case_name_full":"","slug":"moore-v-stearns","docket_number":"3:05-cv-30010","docket_number_core":"0530010","docket_number_raw":"3:05-cv-30010","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"95988","cause":"","nature_of_suit":"190 Other contract actions","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"Diversity of citizenship","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.docket.xml","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299454/","id":7299454,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509157/","id":5509157,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/25/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.870552-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.182776-08:00","sha1":"04dd8acde4b99b2957d776433d5d5fcd07c6feb4","page_count":1,"file_size":21539,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.25.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.25.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 25 Filed 10/13/2005 Page1 of1\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\nDistrict Of Massachusetts\nWestern Division\n\nf ::;;. ~ ~ Docket N0.05-30010_MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE\n\n_ _ STIPULATION OF\nPlamtlffs DISMISSAL WITH\nv. PREJUDICE AND\n\nWITHOUT COSTS\nK_ERRY P. STEARNS and\n\nLAURIE C. NIKITUK\n\nDefendants\n\n \n\n \n\nThe parties to the above-entitled action, pursuant to the provisions of Federal Civ.P.\n\n4l(a)(l)(ii), hereby stipulate that said action be dismissed with prejudice and Without\ncosts.\n\nAttorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendant\nRICKY L. MOORE and KERRY P. STEARNS\nKATHRYN M. MOORE\n\n \n\n \n\nE#adford B.'Moir, Esq. v v Peter J/Brewer, Esq.\n\nMoir & Ross 32 Mahaiwe Street\n\n45 Broad Street, Suite 2 Great Barrington, MA. 01230\nWestfleld, MA 01085-5200 (413) 528-6290\n\n(413) 568-1957 BBO No. 545604\n\nBBO No. 350600\n\nAttorney for Defendant\nLAURIE C. NIKITUK\n\nRichard J. o\u2019,Biien,,Qq.\n75 North St., Suite 310\nPittsfleld, MA. 01201\n(413) 499-5656\n\nBBO No. 552285\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:51-07:00","document_number":"25","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950705603","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation of Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.864285-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.167468-08:00","date_filed":"2005-10-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":25,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-10-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"STIPULATION of Dismissal by Pond Pasture, Inc., Ricky L. Moore, Kathryn M. Moore, Kerry P. Stearns, Laurie C. Nikituk, Pond Pasture Real Estate, Inc.. (Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299453/","id":7299453,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509156/","id":5509156,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/24/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.858771-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.152532-08:00","sha1":"0c24aa231db7ab87a75227b483d10109819897d2","page_count":6,"file_size":117321,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.24.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.24.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 24 Filed 08/29/2005 Paget of 6\n\nuNlTED sTATEs DISTRlCT CQURT\nI)lsTRlCT oF MASSACHUSE.TTS\nwEsTERN nlvlsloN \\. ._ _ ___ . __;?\n\nCivil Action No. 05-300] O-MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. l\\\u2019l()ORli and KATHRYN\nl\\/l. MOORE_\nPlaintit`t`s\n\nV.\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS and liAURIE C_\nNIKITUK\nDet`endants\n\n \n\nDEFENDANT KERRY !\u2019. STEARN\u2019S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT\n\nDet`endant Kerry P. Stearns (`\u201cDet`endant\") hereby answers the Plaintiffs\u2019 SecOnd Amended\nComplaint. paragraph by paragraph following the numbering in the Cornplaint. as follows:\n\nPARTIES\nl. The Det`endant states that he is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph l ot`the Plaintit`f\"s Complaint. and\ncalls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same\n\n2. Admitted.\n\nAdmitted.\n\nL)J\n\n.lURlSI}lCTION\n\n4. The Dct`endant denies that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28\nUSC \u00a7 1331 in that the amount in controversy._ exclusive of interest and costs,\ndoes not exceed $75.0()0.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 2 of 6\n\nl().\n\nll.\n\nINTR()I)UCTION\nThe Defendant states that he is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff\" s Cornplaint, and\ncalls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same. The Defendant states that referenced\ndocuments speak for themselves\nThe Defendant states that the referenced documents speak for themselves The\nDefendant denies that said disclosure served as \"`an express representation\nregarding the condition ofthe property\".\n\nAdm itted.\n\nAdmitted.\n\n'l\"he Del`endant admits that he obtained a Title V report and that he_, or his agent,\nprovided a copy of the report to the Plaintiff.\n\nThe Defendant states that the referenced documents speaks for themselves, and\nthe Defendant otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 10.\n\nAdmitted.\n\nCOUNTI\n\n(FRAUD AND DECEIT - RlCKIE L. MOORE V. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\n14.\n\n15.\n\n16.\n\n17.\n\nlS\u2018.\n\nThe Defendant states that he is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 12, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\npl`(`.'\\/'C S\\':ll\"llC.\n\nThe Defendant states that he is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny thc allegations contained in paragraph 13._ and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same\n\nDenied.\n\nDenied.\n\nDenied.\n\nDenied.\n\nDenied.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 3 of 6\n\nM\n\n(MUTUAL MISTAKE - RICKIE L. MOORE V. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\n19.\n\n20.\n\n26.\n\nL).)\n:'d\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs l-l 8 as if originally set\nforth hercin_\n\nThe Defendant admits that he obtained a Title V report and that he. or his agent,\nprovided a copy ofthe report to the Plaintiff.\n\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\n\nCOUNT llI\n(MISPRESENTAT[ON V. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1-25 as if originally set\nforth herein_\n\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\n\n'l`hc Defendant states that the referenced document speaks for itself and Defendant\notherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 32.\n\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\n\nDenied.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 4 of 6\n\n38.\n\n39.\n\n40.\n\n41.\n\n44.\n\n45.\n\n46.\n\n47.\n\n48.\n\n49.\n\n50.\n\n52.\n\nDenied.\nC()UNT IV\n(MISREPRESENTATION - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE -\nFRAUD - DECEIT V. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1-37 as if originally set\nforth hercin.\n\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nCOUNT V\n(MlSREPRESENTATlON V. LAURIE C. NIKITUK\n\nAND POND PASTURE, INC.)\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1\u00bb 42 as if originally\nset forth herein.\n\nAdmitted.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\n\nDenied.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 5 of 6\n\nCOUNT VI\n\n(UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICE CH. 93A CONSUMER PROTECTION\n\nU\\\nLJJ\n\n54,\n\n55.\n\n56.\n\n57.\n\n58.\n\n60.\n\n61.\n\nVIOLATION V. LAURIE C. NIKITUK)\n\n'l`he Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1-52 as if originally\nset forth herein.\n\n'[`he Defendant states that he is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 54. and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\n\nThe Defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraph 55 are poorly\nworded and a response is not possible lf the Defendant is obligated to respond to\nparagraph 55. he denies said allegations\n\n'l`he Defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraph 56 are poorly\n\nworded and a response is not possible lf the Defendant is obligated to respond to\nparagraph 56. he denies said allegations\n\nDenied.\n\nDenied.\n\nThe Defendant states that the referenced document speaks for itself, and further\nthat he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations\ncontained in paragraph 59. and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same.\n\nThe Defendant states that the referenced document speaks for itself, and further\nthat he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations\ncontained in paragraph 60, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same.\n\nDenied.\n\nDenied\n\nAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES\n\nThe amount in conti'oversy__ exclusive of interest and costs does not exceed\n$75._0()(). Aceordingly. the Plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint should be dismissed\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 6 of 6\n\n2. The Plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be\ngranted and therefore should be dismissed\n\n3. 'l`he l\"la.intiffs have failed to bring their claim within the time allowed by law, and\ntherefore their claim should be dismissed\n\n4. Tlic Plaintiffs` own negligence contributed to their damagesJ if any, and recovery\nin this action should be barred or diminished\n\n5. il`he injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff\"s were caused by the acts or\nnegligence of persons for whose conduct the Defendant is not responsible\n\n6. Process in this action is insufficient; wherefore this action should be dismissed\n\n7. Serviee ofprocess in this action was insufficient; wherefore this action should be\n\ndismissed\n\nWHEREI\"ORl-l. the Defendant prays this Honorable Court deny the relief sought by the\nPlaintiffs. dismiss the l\"laintiffs` Complaint\u201c and grant costs and attorneys fees to the Defendant,\nand grant such other relief and this Honorablc C ourt deems appropriate\n\nRespectfully submitted\n\nKERRY P. STEARNSq\nDefendant\n\nBy ` tor' ey\nW /\n\nPetiertll. Bfewer. Esq.\n\n32 l\\/[ahaiwe Street\n\nGreat Barrington. l\\/IA 01230\n413 528 6290\n\nl\"ax 413 528 6283\n\nBBO # 545604\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\nn rib/l\nl. Peter .l. Brewer. Esq., hereby certify that on this /\u2018_\\,) day of August, 2005, l sent, by first\nclass prepaid mail, a copy of this document to Bradford B. Moir, Esquire, l\\/Ioir & Ross, 45\nBroad Street. Suite 2, Westficld, l\\/lassachusetts 01085 and Richard J. O\u2019Brien, Esq., 75 North\n\nStreet, Pittsfield. l\\/lA 012(}1. :I'*//j- .,;\n/;/l\"t \u00bb~ -\u00bb\u00bb-\nf ft t t\n\nPete .I . lB/rewe\"r\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:03-07:00","document_number":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501809048","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.853243-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.142340-08:00","date_filed":"2005-08-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-08-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Deft&#039;s ANSWER to the Second Amended Complaint by Kerry P. Stearns filed.(Finn, Mary)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299452/","id":7299452,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509155/","id":5509155,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/23/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.846095-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.131016-08:00","sha1":"97d5e421152e59a236bf2d3dc8e3fc7b3f2560de","page_count":1,"file_size":13681,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.23.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.23.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 23 Filed 08/12/2005 Page1 of1\n595 Cr\\\u00a2! ;C\u00a9(C 'MM\"\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI, Bradford B. Moir, Esq., hereby certify that on August 11, 2005 l made service of the\nforegoing Second Amended Complaint by mailing a copy of such, postage prepaid, to the\n\ndefendants\u2019 attorneys at:\n\nPeter J. Brewer, Esq. ;_____ _;\n2 Mahaiwe Street ;_- \" _ ____\n\nP.O. Box 1059 -;: 53 -;_;'\n\nGreat Barrington, MA 01230 __ _'_; 3 'r ' 7\n\nRichard J. O\u2019Brien, Esq.\n75 North Street, Suite 310\nPittsfield, MA 01201\n\n \n\nBradford B. Moir,l Esquire\n\n\\\\DBkaBl l\\m_r\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).\u20ac10\u20ac _ 12 _\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:35:42-07:00","document_number":"23","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501772184","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Certificate of Service","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.838668-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.109459-08:00","date_filed":"2005-08-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":23,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-08-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ricky L. Moore, Kathryn M. Moore re [22] Amended Complaint. (Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299451/","id":7299451,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509154/","id":5509154,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/22/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.831218-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.093926-08:00","sha1":"1fc7eaa21041fc207c040cabb91443f3b4572ace","page_count":35,"file_size":1208392,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.22.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.22.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":". Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Paget of 12\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DIsTRl<:T OF MASSACH usl~:Trs\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nWESTERN Dl\\/lSION DockerNo.05-30010~MAP_\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE\nsECOND AMENDED\nPlaintiffS COMPLAINT\nV' (Jury Trial Demanded)\nKERRY P. sTEARNs and 7 \u00b0 \u00a7\nLAURIE C. NIKITUK i_?J q\nDefendants ::\u00a7 f 7 1\n\u201c_~___j)\n112\nPARTIES \"\n\nl. The Plaintiffs RICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE, are natural persons\nresiding at 1226 North Ninth Avenue, Iron River, Michigan.\n\n2. The Defendant KERRY P. STEARNS is a natural person residing at Otis, Hampden\nCounty Massachusetts.\n\n3. The Defendant LAURlE C. NIKITUK, is a natural person residing at 204 Kingsley Road,\nOtis, Hampden County, Massachusetts, and Was an agent for and/or employed by Pond\nPasture Real Estate.\n\nJURISDICTION\n\n4. This civil action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy,\nexclusive of interests and costs, exceeds $75,000.00. Subject matter jurisdiction exist\npursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332. Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts under 28\nU.S.C. \u00a71391(a).\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\\\\DExbk3l l\\mwr\\Civil Litigation\\MOOre, Rick and Kathy\\COurt Filings\\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).60(:\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 2 of 12\n\n5. In July of 2002, the Defendant, Laurie C. Nikituk, presented the property known as 1495\nReservoir Road, located in Otis, Hampden County, Massachusetts to the Plaintiffs. The\nplaintiffs were given a Massachusetts Association of Realtors\u00ae Seller\u2019s Description of\nProperty by the Listing Agent, Laurie C. Nikituk. Said description contained, inter alia, a\ndisclosure regarding the drinking water source The description stated that there were \u201cno\nknown problems with quality/quantity\u201d of the drinking water or its source.\n\n6. The disclosure was signed by the seller and served as an express representation regarding\nthe condition of the propertyl\n\n7. The Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore made an offer to Kerry P. Stearns to purchase the property\ncommonly known as 1495 Reservoir Road, Otis, Massachusetts.\n\n8. On or about July 22, 2002, the plaintiff Ricky L. Moore and Defendant Kerry P. Steams\nentered into an agreement to buy and sell real estate, specifically the real estate known as\n1495 Reservoir Road.\n\n9. Prior to the property being conveyed, the Plaintiff was provided with a Title V inspection\nreport. The report indicated that it Was completed by Dave A. Sullivan. The inspection\nwas performed at the request of the defendant Kerry P. Steams.\n\n10. Said report presented to the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore represented that the system\nservicing the property conditionally passed the inspection, subject to a passing water test\nand subsequent approval of the Otis Board of Health. This was due to the fact that the\n\nwell servicing the property was within 50 feet of the soil absorption system.\n\n1]. On or about August 20, 2002, the property was conveyed from the defendant Kerry P.\n\nStearns to Ricky L. Moore.\n\n\\\\D3xbk3l 1\\rnir\\Civi1 Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Second Amendcd Complaint (7-27-5).doc _ 2 _\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 3 of 12\n\nCOUNT I\n(FRAUD and DECEIT\nRICKY L. MOORE v. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\n12. Subsequent to the conveyance of the property known as 1495 Reservoir Road, the\nPlaintiff discovered that the septic system servicing the property was not in proper\nworking order. The plaintiff was forced to have the septic tank pumped several times as a\nresult of the system not working properly. In an effort to repair the faulty system, the\nTitle V report presented to the plaintiff Ricky L. Moore at the time of conveyance was\nsubmitted to the Comrnonwealth of Massachusetts executive office of the Department of\nEnvironmental Protection, Western Regional Offlce.\n\n13. Upon review of the Title V inspection, the program director pointed out several criteria\nupon which the Title V inspector should have failed the system.\n\n14. Massachusetts law requires sellers of real property with private sewer systems to have a\nthorough system inspection prior to conveyance lf the system fails to meet certain\nminimum criteria, the property, as a matter of law cannot be conveyed.\n\n15. The Defendant Kerry P. Steams is vicariously liable for the actions of his agents Due to\nhis agents lack of due diligence, the defendant Kerry P. Stearns provided an inaccurate\nand incomplete Title V report to the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore. Said report served as a\nmaterial representation that private sewer system was in good working order and that the\ncondition of the private sewer system met the requirements set forth in 310\n\nMassachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301., when in fact it did not.\n\n16. The Title V inspection report induced the plaintiff Ricky L. Moore go through with the\n\npurchase of the property.\n\n\\\\D3xbk31 1\\m_r\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Second Arnendcd Complaint (7-27-5).\u20ac10\u20ac _ 3 _\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 4 of 12\n\n17. The Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore justifiably relied on the defendant Kerry P. Steams\nrepresentations, to his detrimentl\n\n18. As a result, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record title\nholder to the real estate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring\nthe system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15 .301.\n\nQO&M\n(MUTUAL MISTAKE\nRICKY L. MOORE v. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\n19. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs l through 19 as if restated fully herein.\n\n20. The Defendant Kerry P. Steams provided a Title V inspection report to the Plaintiff Ricky\nL. Moore.\n\n21 . A passing Title V inspection report was a condition precedent in the contract entered into\nby the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore and the Defendant Kerry P. Steams\n\n22. Subsequent test and review of the Title V inspection report revealed that the report\npresented to the Plaintiff was inaccurate and that the private sewer system servicing the\nproperty did not meet the criteria required by 310 Massachusetts Code of Regulations\n15 .301.\n\n23. The fact that the private sewer system is in failure is material in that the property will not\naccommodate a typical septic system design, replacement is very costly and the Plaintiff\nwould not have purchased the property if provided with this information prior to the\nconveyance\n\n24. The Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore justifiany relied upon the report provided to him from\nKerry P. Steams and acted with reasonable care under circumstances\n\n25. As a result of the mutual mistake, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has suffered a damages\n\n\\\\D3xbk31 l\\mir\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Courl Filings\\Sccond Amended Complaint (7-27~5}.doc _ 4 _\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 5 of 12\n\nemma\n(MISREPRESENTATION v. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\n26. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 26 as if restated fully herein.\n\n27. The Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the Defendant Kerry P. Steams representations that\nthere were no known problems with the drinking water supply.\n\n28. Subsequent to the conveyance of the property, the Plaintiffs became ill. After numerous\nmonths of Suffering from the illness and after several visits to a physician, their physician\nrecommended that the plaintiffs have their drinking water supply tested.\n\n29. The Plaintiffs had the drinking water supply tested and the test revealed that the water\nDID NOT meet public drinking water bacteriological standards, and the plaintiffs were\nadvised that they should not consume the water due to the contamination\n\n30. The Plaintiff s physician determined that the contaminated drinking Water supply was the\ncause of the Plaintiff\u2019s sickness\n\n31. The Plaintiffs flushed the drinking water system several times and were able to reduce the\nlevel of contamination to an acceptable level, however it consistently returned to its\nprevious level Within a few weeks.\n\n32.Paragraph 17 of the purchase and sale agreement signed by the Defendant Kerry P.\nSteams specifically stated that the well contained no defects known to seller.\n\n33. Upon information and belief`, the Defendant Kerry P. Steams had problems with the water\nsupply prior to the property being listed for sale, that the water had been tested on\nnumerous occasions, that prior tenants Were advised to refrain from consuming the water\n\nand he knew or should have known that the well servicing the property was defective\n\n\\\\D3xbk3l l\\m_r\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).d0c _ 5 _\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 6 of 12\n\n34. Upon infomiation and belief, the Defendant Kerry P. Steams took steps to hide the fact\nthat the water contained high levels of contaminates in an effort to ensure the water test\nwould pass the Title V inspection\n\n35. The Plaintiffs have not consumed the water since the test revealed the high levels of\ncontaminates in the drinking water supply and their health has improved\n\n36. As a result, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record holder\nto real estate Which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring the drinking\nwater system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301, et\nseq..\n\n37. As a result of the Defendant Kerry P. Steams representation, the Plaintiffs have suffered\nfrom great pain of mind and body. ln addition, the Plaintiffs have incurred great expense\nassociated with medical treatment for both physical and psychological ailments\n\nCOUNT IV\n(MISREPRESENTATION/FAILURE TO DISCLOSE/FRAUD/DECEIT\nv. KERRY P. STEARNS.)\n\n38. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 38 as if restated fully herein.\n\n39. The Defendant Kerry P. Stearns as seller of the property had a duty to disclose any past\nproblems with the drinking water supply as he knew or should have known that the defect\nWas latent and predictably could affect the health, safety and welfare of the plaintiffs\n\n40. The Defendant Kerry P. Steams is liable to the Plaintiff Ricky Moore for his omission\nbecause he had special knowledge of a material fact that was not readily discernable and\nknew or should have known that a potential purchaser of the property would want to\n\nknow prior to making an offer to purchase\n\n\\\\D3xbk3l l\\m_r\\Civi] Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Fi]ings\\Sccond Amended Comp|aint ('/'-27-5).doc __ 6 _\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 7 of 12\n\n41. As a result, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record title\nholder to real estate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring the\ndrinking water system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations\n15.301, et seq..\n\n42. As a result of the Defendant Kerry P. Steams omission, the Plaintiffs have suffered from\ngreat pain of mind and body. In addition, the Plaintiffs have incurred great expense\nassociated with medical treatment for both physical and psychological ailments\n\nCOUNT V\n(MISREPRESENTATION v. LAURIE C. NIKITUK)\n\n43. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 43 as if restated fully herein.\n\n44. Laurie C. Nikituk was the agent and/or employee for Pond Pasture Real Estate, the listing\nbroker for the Seller Defendant Kerry P. Steams\n\n45.Prior to the property being conveyed, the Plaintiffs specifically questioned Laurie C.\nNikituk, the listing agent for the seller, Defendant Kerry P. Steams if the seller had ever\nhad any problem with the water quality and quantity.\n\n46.The Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk represented to the Plaintiffs that the seller had not\nexperienced any problems with the drinking water supply.\n\n47. Prior to the property being conveyed, the Plaintiffs specifically questioned Laurie C.\nNikituk, the listing agent for the seller, Defendant Kerry P. Steams if the owner had ever\nhad any problems with the drinking water.\n\n48. The Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk made a representation to the Plaintiffs, that, inter alia\n\u201cthe water had already been tested, the water passed and that they would be wasting their\n\nmoney if they did decide to test it.\u201d\n\n\\\\D3xbk3l l\\mgr\\Civ:`l Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Sccond Amcnded Complaint (7-27-5).doc _ 7 __\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 8 of 12\n\n49. The Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the representations of Laurie C. Nikituk and\nconsequently the Plaintiffs did not have the water tested.\n\n50. The representation made was false.\n\n51. As a result of their reliance on the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk\u2019s representations the\nPlaintiffs have suffered from great pain of mind and body. In addition, the Plaintiffs have\nincurred great expense associated with medical treatment for both physical and\npsychological ailments\n\n52. As a further result of their reliance on the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk\u2019s representation,\nthe Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record title holder to real\nestate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring the drinking water\nsystem into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301, et seq..\n\nCOUNT VI\n(UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICE\nc. 93A CONSUMER PROTECTION VIOLATION v. Laurie C. Nikituk)\n\n53. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs l through 53 as if restated fully herein.\n\n54. This is an action for damages pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act,\nG.L. c. 93A, \u00a7\u00a7 2, 9(1)_\n\n5 5. The Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk as agent for the Defendant Kerry P. Steams had an duty\nrelay any questions she did not know the answers to regarding specific conditions of the\nproperty to the seller defendant Kerry P. Stearns\n\n56. The Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk made a representation as a matter of fact, irregardless of\nthe fact that she herself had no actual knowledge of the condition and never in fact\n\nrelayed such questions regarding the condition of the property to the seller.\n\n\\\\[)3xbk31 l\\m_r\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Second Amendcd Complaint (7-27-5).doc _ 8 __\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 9 of 12\n\n57. Laurie C. Nikituk\u2019s actions or failure to act are deceptive in that said actions caused the\nPlaintiff Ricky L. Moore to act differently than he would have had the Defendant Laurie\nC. Nikituk acted with due diligence The actions of Laurie C. Nikituk constitute unfair\nand deceptive acts or practices violative of Massachusetts Protection Act G.L. c. 93A \u00a7\n2.\n\n58. The acts or practices of the Defendant resulting in the loss described in paragraphs 52 and\n53, supra, were done willfully or knowingly in violation of G.L. c. 93A, \u00a72.\n\n59. On or about March lSm, 2004, the Plaintiff served the via certified mail a written demand\nfor relief identifying the claimant and reasonably describing the unfair or deceptive\npractice relied upon and the injury suffered A copy of this written demand for relief is\nattached hereto as Exhibit 1.\n\n60. On or about April 16, 2004, the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk by an through her counsel\nresponded to said demand, claimed no liability and tendered no offer of settlementl\n\n61. As a result of their reliance on the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk\u2019s actions or failure to act,\nthe Plaintiffs have suffered from great pain of mind and body. ln addition, the Plaintiffs\nhave incurred great expense associated with medical treatment for both physical and\npsychological ailments\n\n62. As a result, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record holder\nto real estate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring the drinking\nwater system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301, et\nseq..\n\nWHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court grant them the following relief\n\n\\\\D3xbk3l l\\mir\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Second Amended Complaint ('.\"-2'.\"-5).doc _ 9 _\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 10 of 12\n\nII.\n\nIlI,\n\nIV.\n\nV.\n\nVl.\n\nJudgment be entered against the Defendant Kerry P. Steams in the amount\nequal to the purchase price of the property and the Defendant Kerry P. Steams\nbe enjoined take back title to the real estate; or\n\nJudgment be entered against the Defendant Kerry P. Steams in the amount\nequal the entire amount to replace the existing private sewer system and\nprivate well, and\n\nThe plaintiffs be compensated for their actual damages sustained in regards to\nthe real estate;\n\nThe Plaintiffs be compensated for their physical pain and suffering and mental\nanguish caused by the Defendant Kerry P. Steams, with interest\n\nThe Plaintiffs be awarded their cost and attomey\u2019s fees;\n\nAny other relief this court feels is just and equitable\n\nWHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court grant them the following relief against\n\nLaurie C. Nikituk\n\nVll.\n\nVIII.\n\nIX.\n\nJudgment be entered against the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk and the\nplaintiffs be awarded for their actual damages in the amount equal to the cost\nto replace the existing private sewer system and private well servicing the real\nestate;\n\nThe Plaintiffs be compensated for their physical pain and suffering and mental\nanguish caused by Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk\u2019s misrepresentations with\ninterest;\n\nThe Plaintiffs be awarded their cost and attorney\u2019s fees pursuant to M.G.L. c.\n\n93A ;\n\n\\\\D3xbk3l l\\mir\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Fil:`ngs\\Second Amended Complaint ('.\"-27-5).doc _ 10 _\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 11 of 12\n\nX. The Court award double or treble damages pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A;\nXI. Any other relief this court feels is just and equitable\nTHE PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY ON\nALL COUNTS SO TRIABLE\nTHE PLAINTIFFS\n\nRicky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore\nBy their attomey,\n\nDated: July 27, 2005\n\n \n\nBr ord P M`oir, Esq`iiire \"\nM & ROSS\n\n45 Broad Street, Suite #2\nWestfield, MA 01085\n\nTel. (413) 568-1957\n\nFax. (413) 562-4691\n\nBBO# 350600\n\n\\\\D3xbk3l l\\m_r\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Second Arncnded Complaint (7-27-5].d0c _ 1 l _\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 12 of 12\n\nCERTlFlCATE OF SERVICE\n\nl, Bradford B. Moir, Esq., hereby certify that l made service of the foregoing Second\nAmended Complaint by mailing a copy of such, postage prepaid, to the defendants at:\n\nKerry P. Steams Laurie Nikituk\nPO Box 678 204 Kingstley Rd.\nOtis, MA 01253 Otis, MA 012 3\n\n/\u2026l /1\n\nBradfbfd [Bi. l\\}lob/, higduiie b\n\n\\\\D3xbk31 l\\mwr\\Civil l_,itigation\\Moore, Rick and Kathy\\Court Filings\\Second Amended Complaint {7-2?-5).doc _ 12 _\n\nFiled 07/29/2005 Page 1 of 23\n\n-\nPLA|NT|FF S\nEXHIB|T\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2\n\n\"W ` ___'\n\nMOIR & ROSS\n\nLAW OFFICES\n45 BROAD STREET, SU'ITE TWO\nWESTFIELD, MASSACHUSE'ITS 01035-5200\n\n    \n \n\n \n\n \n\nBRADFORD B. MOIR ANNEH'E ziP. Ross*\nOF COUNSEL\n\nTELEPHONE: (413) 568-1957 *alsn admitted in Fler'ida\n\nFACSIMILE: (413) 562-4691 with an office in Venice\n\nmoiross@aol.com\n\nSENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7002 2410 0004 8796 8835 'P[||]E EL+L[| l][][|'-l B?EIB EBHE\nAND UNITED STATES FlRST CLASS MAIL\n\nMarch 10, 2004\n\nMrs. Laurie Nikituk\n204 Kingstley Rd.\nOtis, MA 01253\n\nRE: 1495 Reservoir Road, Otis, Massachusetts.\nDear Mrs. Nikituk;\n\nThis is a demand for relief pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G.L.\nc. 93A, \u00a7 9(3). The claimants are Ricky L. Moore and Kathryn Moore, 1495 Reservoir Road,\nOtis, Massachusetts\n\nPlease be advised that this office represents Mr. Ricky L. Moore and Mrs. Kathryn\nMoore On the twentieth day of August in 2002 Mr. Ricky L. Moore purchased the above\nreferenced property from Kerry Steams Mr. and Mrs. Moore have related to me that they had\nexpressed concerns to you regarding the well water. ln particular, they had specifically asked\nyou if they should have the well water tested themselves Mr. and Mrs. Moore claimed that your\nresponse was \u201cyou would be wasting your money, the seller had the water tested and it passed\u201d.\nA new test is not going to show anything different then the water test that was already done.\u201d\nYour actions were in the very least professionally negligent given the fact that the truth regarding\nthe well water was easily ascertainable i.e. asking Mr. Steams if he had every had any problems\nwith the well water in the past or if he had experienced any problems with obtaining a passing\n\nwater test.\n\nUnfortunately for Mr. & Mrs. Moore, they relied on your representation The fact of the\nmatter is, the well water servicing the premises was contaminated and had dangerously high\nlevels of Total Coliform and does not meet the Commonwealth\u2019s public drinking water\nbacteriological standards In addition, the Moore\u2019s have presented to me evidence that suggest\n\n \n\n \n\nCase 3.:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 2 of 23\n\n{\\-_.~\"j U\n\nLaurie Nikituk\nMarch lO, 2004\nPage 2 of 2\n\nthat Mr. Steams knew the well water was contaminated and that the previous tenants of the\nproperty had problems with the well water. Whether or not that was disclosed to you is yet to be\ndetermined\n\nEnclosed is a copy of a letter from Department of Environmental Protection, Westem\nRegional Office summarizing it\u2019s review of the Title V inspection completed by David A.\nSullivan on August 16, 2001. The review was completed by the Executive Ofticc of\nEnvironmental Affairs. As you will be able to glean from the report, the Title V inspection\ncontained many errors and omissions Of particular interest is the item number 5 of the report,\nthat the results of the Total Colifonn bacteria test were invalid due to the analysis being\nconducted more than 30 hours after the sample was collected ln addition, the water test shows\nthe presence of Dichloromethane at a concentration of 0.79 ug/l, an indication that bleach may\nhave been used in an effort to bring the Total Coliforrn levels down to 0 and pass the Title V\n\ninspection\n\nAs a result of your misrepresentation, Mr. and Mrs. Moore had been consuming\ncontaminated water since the property was conveyed to them on August 20, 2002. Each of them\nbecame very ill and had their primary care physician puzzled for months as to the cause Mrs.\nMoore suffered from head aches, fatigue, muscle pain, diarrhea, sore throat, foul smelling urine,\nloss of hair, dry skin, bruising, dizziness, chills, and fainting. Mr. Moore suffer from similar\nsymptoms fatigue, muscle pain, diarrhea, and joint pain. Aner the Moore\u2019s stopped drinking the\nwell water, each of their symptoms began to resolve within two weeks, but still to this date still\naffect them.\n\nThe Moore\u2019s have spent considerable monies testing and retesting the well water. Each\ntest revealed a high count of Total Coliform. ln addition, the source of the Total Coliform is\nunknown, but could quite possibly be the septic system servicing the property given its proximity\nto the well. Had they not relied on your representation, all of this may had been avoided\n\nGiven the circumstances surrounding the real estate transaction, Mr. & Mrs. Moore\ndemand the following:\n\nl. The property can not be sold given the severe well water problem it has The property is\nrelatively worthless in its present condition lt cannot be rented due to the poor water\n\nquality. The Moore\u2019s have surmised from experts in the industry that no matter what'\n\nsteps they take to correct the problem, there is no guarantee that a new well will not have\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 3 of 23\n\n~ .`_ - \\,\n\nLaurie Nikituk\nMarch 10, 2004\nPage 3 of 3\n\nthe same problem Since the Title V hispection was not valid, and that the property\nshould never have been conveyed, and in addition you misrepresented the quality of the\nwater, the Moore\u2019s demand that you reimburse them for the hill purchase price of their\nproperty, including their cost and expenses They will in turn deed the property over to\nyou.\n\n2. Due to your intentional misrepresentation, the Moore\u2019s have suffered both physically and\npsychologically, Mrs. Moore in particular has had to undergo extensive psychological\ntherapy and has developed an aversion to water. This physical pain and suffering is a\ndirect and proximate result of your negligent misrepresentation and the Moore\u2019s hereby\ndemand $25,000.00 in damages\n\n3. The Moore\u2019s demand that they be reimbursed for all of their out of pocket expenses\n\nincluding attorney\u2019s fees to date\n\nIn the event you decline to respond to this demand letter, please take notice that the\nMassachusetts Consumer Protection Act provides that if the Moore\u2019s prevail in an action\nagainst you, you can be held liable for double or treble damages, expenses and attorney\u2019s\nfees Under Massachusetts law, you have thirty days to respond to this letter before 1 initiate\nlitigation on the Moore\u2019s behalf.\n\nSincere\n\nBradford B. Moir, Esq.\n\nEnclosure\nCC. Mr. and Mrs. Ricky Moore\n\n \n\n \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 4 of 23\n\nCoMMoNWEALTH or MAssAcHUsnTTs\nExnCUTtvE Orrrca or ENWRONMENTAL AFFAIRS\nDEPARTMENT oF ENvIRoNMENTAL PaoTEoTIoN\n\nWESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE\n436 Dwight Street \u00bb Springfleld, Massachusetts 01103 - (413) 784-1100\n\n \n\nMITT ROMNEY ELLEN ROY HER.ZFELDER\nGove rnor Secret.ary\nKERRY HEALEY ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE. Jr.\nlieutenant Governor Comrnissioner\n\nns 1 21st\nRichard and Kathy Moore\nP.O. Box 913\nEast Otis, MA 01029-0913 Re: Otis-WMM\nMoore Complaint\n1495 Reservoir Road\nProject #03-225~104\n\nDear Mr., & Ms. Moore:\n\nThe Department has reviewed your correspondences of November 5 and 20, 2003 regarding a\nTitle 5 lnspection Repoit for 1495 Reservoir Road in East Otis, Mass conducted by David A.\nSullivan on August 16, 2001. According to the Report the system \u2018needs further evaluation by\nthe Local Approving Authority\u2019 due to the system having a septic tank and soil absorption\nSystem (SAS) with the SAS being within 50 feet of a private water supply well. lncluded with\nthe Report are results of water sampling collected on luly 24, 2001, a September 1 1, 2001 letter\nfrom Peter Kolodziej, Agent for the Otis Board of I-lealth, and results of water sampling\ncollected on November 5, 2003.\n\nBased on a review of the Title 5 lnspection Report and accompanying correspondence the\nDepartment finds the following:\n\n1. Pait D, page 4 of thc Report requires the lnspector to indicate \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d to the\nfailure criteria listed. The Departrnent finds that at least one criterion was left blank\n(i.e. Discharge or ponding of effluent to the surface of the ground or surface waters\ndue to an overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool).\n\n2. Page 5, size and location of SAS: The word \u2018deterrnined\u2019 was crossed off and\n\u2018approximate` typed in. The Report specifically states that approximating the\nlocation of SAS is unacceptable if the determination involves failure criteria related to\ndistance (i.e. setback to well).\n\nThis information is available in alternate formal. Cal| Dehr:t Doherty, ADA Coardinamr a1617-292-5565.TDD Service -1-800-198-220'.'.\n\nDEP on the World Wide Web: http:llwww.mass\u2018govldep\nab Frinled on Recycled Paper\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 5 of 23\n\n\\ \"_`\n\n3. Page 6 indicates that the last date of occupancy \u2018Present\u2018 and that a new septic tank\nwas installed on lune 29, 2001, the date ofthe inspection is listed as August 16, 2001,\nyet Page 7 ofthe Report indicates that the tank is new and has not been used Ifthe\nhouse was currently occupied why was the tank not used? ln addition the size ofthe\nnew tank was listed as 8\u20196\u201d)<5`><48\u201d. Even assuming that the dimensions listed were\ninside tank dimensions then the volume ofthe tank would be approximately 1270\ngallons Section 310 CMR 15.404 allows the upgrade ofa single component ofa\nsystem (e.g. septic tank) provided that component upgrade is in full compliance with\n310 CMR 15.00. Section 310 CMR 15.223(1)(a) requires that the effective liquid\ncapacity ofa septic tank be in no case less than 1500 gallons\n\n4. Page 9 indicates that the SAS was monitored and dye tested for two days and showed\nno signs ofbreakout, ponding, hydraulic failure or abnormal vegetation. lfthe\nmonitoring was part of the inspection, why was only one date listed on the Report?\nMore importantly why was the system dye tested?\n\n5. The accompanying lab analyses with the report that were taken on luly 241 2001\nappear to have been taken almost a month prior to the date ofthe inspection ln\naddition, while the samples for Total Coliform bacteria were collected on July 24,\n2001 at 2:45 pm, the samples were not analyzed until July 26, 2001, more than the 30\nhour holding time for Total Colifonn. Hence the results for Coliform analysis were\ninvalid The VOC results show the presence ofDichoromethane at a concentration of\n0.79 ug/l. The nitrate resultwas 0.68 mg/l and the ammonia result was listed as \u2018not\n\ndetected\u2019.\n\n6. The September 11, 2001 letter issued for the Board ofHealth has determined that the\nsystem is functioning in a manner that protects public health, safety and the\nenvironment (section 310 CMR 15.303(1)(c)). However the Board, as part ofits\ndetermination must consider the condition of the water supply including an analysis\nfor coliform bacteria. Section 5 above shows the results ofthe Total Coliforrn\nanalysis t_o be invalid\n\n7. The results of samples taken by yourself on November 5, 2003, more than 2 years\nafter the date ofthe Title 5 lnspection showed a total coliform count of2 colonies per\n100 ml of sample ln addition the sample was analyzed for E.Coli with a result of0\ncolonies per 100 ml. The nitrate result was 3.66 mg/l and the ammonia results was\n\nlisted as \u2018<0.0lmg/l\u2019.\n\nWhile the more recent analysis does show higher levels ofnitrate than the analysis ofluly 24,\n2001, the results do not conclusively indicate that the bacteria problems found in your well are\nresults of an impact by a septic system. You have indicated via telephone conversations that the\ntop of your well casing is located in abelow ground pit. Furthermore you relayed information\nfrom a contractor who performed well maintenance on your well that the pit had water in it on\nprevious occasions You also expressed concern that your neighbor`s subsurface disposal system\nwas based on surficial topography, at a higher elevation than your well and was therefore\n.impacting your well. While any of the above factors could theoretically impact on your well,\nthere is not, based on the available information you have provided sufficient information to\nconclude with any assurance which, if any of the above factors could cause the bacterial\nproblems in your drinking supply well. Certainly ifthere was water present in the well pit, it\nwould be prudent to_ raise the well casing above ground\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 6 of 23\n\n) .t .`,\n\nIf there are any questions regarding this matter, please contact Paul Nietupslti at 413-755-2218 at\nthis office.\n\nSincerely,\n\n  \n\nMark A. Schleevveis\nProgram Chief, Wastewater Program\nBureau Resource Protection\n\nP.ll\\l/pjn\nW:`\\btp\\wpc`\\wpcdoc`\\Complaints\\T\u00a7 chtisl\u2018vloore\n\ncc: Otis Board of Health, P.O. Box 237, Town Hall Otis, MA 02153\n\n \n\n \n\nC e 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 7 of 23\n\n' Cc\\_~_ .tomvnurn or MAssAcnUssrrs\\-tg p C \\@Cl\nEttncurrvn OFFICE or EuvtaoNi/tai\\rrnb strauss 05 &D.Ol\nDEPARTMENT or ENvtaoNMENTAL Pao'rncrror~\u2019 \"\n\n \n\n'l`lTLE 5\nOFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM - NO'I` FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSURFAC`E SEWAGE. DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR\n. PART A '\nCERTIFICATION\n\nLot#:\n\nPrnperty Address-. 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis Map:\n\n \n\nOwner\u2019s Name: Kerry Stearns\n\nOwner\u2019sAddress: P.O. Box 678\n__oi-i~=l M,-q most\n\nDateorlnspection: Aucrust 16, 2001\n\nNarne ofInspector: (plcase print) David A. Sullivan\nCompany Na_me: Sullivan Inspections\nMailing Ad_dress: P. O. Box `4052\n\n_EE_EI_O.tJ_s_,_Ma_.__O\n'I`eiephone Number: \u00a713-2\u00a72-4880\n\nCERTIFICATION S'I`ATEMENT\n\nl certify that i have personally inspected the sewage disposal system at this address and that the information reported\nbelow is true, accurate and complete as of the time of the inspection The inspection was performed based on my\ntraining and experience in the proper function and maintenance of on site sewage disposal systems I am a DEP\napproved system inspector pursuant to Section 15.34\u20ac| of Title 5 (310 CMR 15.000). The system:\n\n1029\n\nPasses\nConditionally Passes . .\nX Needs Further Evaiuation by the Locc-.l Approving Authority (l\"\u00a2\u2019\u00a2\u2019 'l\u2018 \" ad \\J'\u201c\"(\"' 6\n\n' _m_ rails\nInspector\u2019s Signature: \u00a2\u00e9M//\u2019 @l\u00a2~_' Date: M\u00e9 l 1 , eeo l\n\npy oi`this inspection report to the Approving Autirority (Boa.rd ofHealth or\n\nDEP) within 30 days ofcompleting this inspectionl lfthe system is a shared system or has a design flow of 10,000\ngpd or greater, the inspector and the system owner shall submit the report co the appropriate-regional office ofthe\nDEP. The original should be sent to thc system owner and copies sent to the buyer, ifapplicable, and the approving\n\nauthority\n\nThe system inspector shall submit a co\n\nNotes and Comrncnts . .\nThis document should not be acted on until reviewed by the town\n\nBoard of Health or its agent. N.A.= Not applicable.\n\n**\"\"*This report only describes conditions at the time of inspection and under the conditions of use at that\ntime. This inspection does not address how the system will perform in the future under the same or different\n\nconditions of use.\n\nTitle 5 lr\u00a7.pection Form 6/[5/2000 Page l fulfich Irupceh\"ra'u\nF j_ ]_ e /,O}D lime jarer\nt\u00a2'.c. swore zant cia ata\niii-2554ng\n\nG\u00a2H\u00a2H-i-\n\n~_\u00a2\n\n \n\n   \n\npp 2 t HCase 3:05-cv-30010_-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 8 of 23\n_ li.gi$ 0\nOFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM -NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESS'MENTS\nSUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM\n' PART A\nCERTIFICATION (continued`)\n\nL:\u00bb Pmperry A<idresg; 1495 Reservoir Road; East Otis\n\n \n\nStearns\n\n \n\nI have riot found any information which indicates that any ofthe failure criteria described in 310 CMR\n15.3 03 or in 3 10 CMR 15.304 exist Any failure criteria not evaluated are indicated below.\n\nComments:\n\n \n\n \n\nB. System Contiitioria|iy Passes: N _ ph\n\nOne or more system components as described in the \"Conditional Pass\" section need to be replaced or\nrepaired The system, upon completion of the replacement or repair, as approved by the Board ofi-Iealth, will pass.\n\n'Answer yes, no or not determined (Y,N_.ND) in the for the following statements If \u201cnot deterrnined\u201d please\nexplain\n\nThe septic tank is metal and over 20 years old* or the septic tank (whether metal or not) is structurally\nL`\u00a7 15 unsound exhibits substantial infiiu'ation or ext`ilrration or tank failure is imminent. System will pass inspection it` the\nexisting tactic is replaced with a complying septic tank as approved by the Board ofHealrh.\n\n\\'P\u2018 u fA metal septic tank will pass inspection ifit is structurally sound, not leaking and ifa Certit`icate ofCornpliance\nle Sv\u00bb ;ledicating that the tank is less than 20 years old is available t `\ntil` `\n\n3er Pi;iSD explain:\n\nt / .\nfo bia Observation ofsewave backu or break out or hi static water level in the distribution box cue to broken or\nD\nP\n\n5 \u00a2.\\\\`\\R\\\u00a7l\u2019obsrructed pipc(s) or due to a broken, settled or uneven distribution box. Systern will pass inspection if(with-\nil approval of'Board ofI-iealth)\u2018,\n\nt\nil;i'\\`/./Q\\\u20ac;\u00a2) broken pipefs) are replaced\n\\\n\n \n\n;Yg\\b obstruction is removed\n\\?' Q\\\u00a7 ' ' distribution box is leveled or replaced k\n-\\ .\nND explain:\n\nThe system required pumping more titan 4 times a year due to broken or obstructed pipe(s). The system will\npass inspection if (with approval ofthe Board ofHeait.h):\n\nbroken pipe(s) are replaced\nobstruction is removed\n\nND explain:\n2 \u2018 Stu\u00a7trm f mims\n. firm 5 \"'nno.'.\nF l ]_ a T.U. Eci; 405'2, .'Em\u2018t Str's, Fil\u2019;ii\n\ntL'l-\u2018li>`$\u2018-M\u2019KU\n\n# /o/o\n\n \n\n \n\n` Pa e 9 of 23\n.HE.CaSe3:05-cv-3001O-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 g _\n\n_i\n/\n\nOFFICIAL lNSPECTION FORM - NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM\nPART A\nCERTIFICATION (continued)\n\nPropertyAddress: 1495 Reservoir Roadc East Gtis\n\n \n\nOwner: Sti=~arri'-=\nDate of Inspecti`on: Aiigiic;i' 16 7001\n\nC. Further Evaluation is Required by the Board ofHealth:\n\nX Conditions exist which require fin-ther evaluation by the Board of Health in order to determine if the system\nis failing to protect public health, safety or the environment\n\n1. System will pass unless Board ofHealth determines in accordance with 310 CMR 15..303(1)(b) that the\nsystem is not functioning iri a manner which will protect public health, safety and the environment\n\n/- f _*\"'k--- -.__\n\u00a7\u00a7___ Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a surface water '\u201c \u00e9\u00e9;\":y\u2019 F / QFFE;\u2019T&H\"H=EQL_'?\n\n' \"`l 7___ Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland or a salt marsh\n\n    \n \n\n'2. Systeni will |'ail unless the Board of Health (and Pttblic Water Supplier. if any) determines that the\nsystem is functioning in a manner that protects the public health, safety and environment:\n\n____ The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system (SAS) and the SAS is within 100 feet ol`a\nsurface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply.\n\n_ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within a Zone..l.of.a.pubfie water supplyl\n'E .-s'\u201d`*'_j; ,_.\n\n\\$ _X_ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the Sr'_i_/S is within 50 feet cia H_t_'ate mstar s`upply well.\n\nrl\\l\\`l; 15?}:{\nx\n-.,3\\;(\"\u2019} -See attached wall water ana .. \u201d_\n\ni\\ live gill in ___ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SA is les 00 feet but 50 feet or more fr\n\nt 5 Q C;r~\\ 0 t> '>7 private water supply well\u2018*. Met`hod used to determine distance ma pa\n\n   \n\n**This system passes ifthe well water analysis performed at a DEP certified laboratory, for coliform\n_\u2018_ 55 l' _/7 bacteria and volatile organic compounds indicates that the well is free from pollution from that facility and\n` _ the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 ppm, provided that no other\nl\\\u2018 b failure criteria are triggered A copy of the analysis must be attached to this fonn.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n'ii-\n\nfsi-illiter- l':traa: firm\n\nFi le # m 19 3 innocent\n_\u201c_-__ 'F.C-. Qi\":tr_ itis'..':`. rt`,a.ct U.\u2018i`r, 952 '\n4 15- 26_\u2018.\u2019~ -t t\".'i`-\u2018.`r\n\n \n\n \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 10 of 23\n1 t\n\nPage 4 or l\n\nOFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM - NO'I` FGR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSUR_FACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM\nPART A\n\nCERTIFICATION (continued)\n\nProperty Adclress: 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis\n\n \n\nOwner: Stearn$\n\nDate oflnspection: g]]g]]\u00a7t ]5 f 2001\nF* _\n\" Q \u00bb\\iOl;>/ystem Failure Criteria applicable to all systems:\n5 C u must indicate \"yes\" or \u201cno\" to each of the following for Binspections:\n\nYes No\nX Bacicup of sewage into facility or system component due to overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool\n\nDischarge or pending ofeffluent to the surface of the ground or surface waters due to an overloaded or\n\n,( .\n\na 9 ____ e_\n\n'Sb`,al\"\u00b0\"=?( clogged SAS or cesspool\n\n` N ' AStatic liquid level in the distribution box above outlet invert due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or\ncesspool\n\n__ \u00a7 pi_,'lquid depth l.n cesspooi is less than 6\u201c below invest or available volume is less than \u2018/= day flow\n_u_ _X_ Required pumping more than 4 times in the last year NO'I` due to clogged or obstructed pipe(s). Number\noftimes pumped 1 .with replacement of septic tank-\n\n_ _X__ Any portion of the SAS1 ccsspo_ol or pri is-below high ground water elevation\n_M___ HN_ AAny portion ot\"cesspool or privy is with` 100 et of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface\n\u00b0 water supply. ` -' ;c, _\n\n__ N__B- -Any portion ofa eesspool or privy is within a Zone 1 ofa public well.-\u2019-_\"` '\n' ' 4 ___ N__A _Any portion ofa cesspool or privy is within 50 feet ofa private water supply well.\n__ A.ny portion of a cesspool or privy is less than 100 feet but greater than 50 feet from a private water\nm - supply well with no acceptable water quality analysis |Thi's system passes if the well water analysis,\nperformed at a DEP certified laboratory, for coliforrn bacteria and volatile organic compounds\nindicates that the well is free from pollution from that facility and the presence ofammonia\nnitrogen,a-nQ-nit ate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 p_pm, provided that no other failure criteria\n\n:Ye\u2019/` tggered. copy ofthe analysis must be attached to this form.]\n\n \n\n \n \n\nNC\u2019 (_Ye fbi system fails. l have determined that one or more ofthe above failure criteria exist as\ndescribed in 3 lO CMR 15.303, therefore the system fails. The system owner should contact the Board of\n\nHealtl'i to determine what will be necessary to correct the failure\n\nE. Large Systems: ' N ' A' -\n\n'l`o be considered a large system the system m.u_st serve a facility with a desi\nepd.\n\nYou must indicate either \u201cyes\" or \u201cno\" to each ofthe following:\n\n(The following criteria apply to large systems i.n addition to the criteria above)\n\ngo flow of 10,000 gpd to 15,000\n\nyes no\n__ _ the system is within 400 feet ofa surface drinking water supply\n\nthe system is within 200 feet ofa tributary to a surface drinking water supply\n\n_ the system is located in a nitrogen sensitive area (`[nterim Wellhead Protection Area - IWPA) or a mapped\nZone II ofa public water supply well\n\nIfyou have answered \"yes\" to any question \u2018in Section E the system is considered a significant threat, or answered\n\"yes\" in Sec:ion D above the large system has failed. The owner or operator ofany large system considered a\nsignificant threat under Section E or failed under Section D shall upgrade the system in accordance with 310 C`MR\n15.304. The system owner should contact the appropriate{regional office ofthe Department.\n\nFile # la 13\n\n    \n\n \n\nCase 3'05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 11 of 23\n\n\u2018~._./\n\nOFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM - NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM\nPART B\n\nCHECHIST\n\nProperty Addrcss: 1405 Reservoir Road, East Otis\n___________\n\nOwner: Stearns\n\n__________\nDateoflnspection: August 16L 2901\n\nCheck if the following have been done. You must indicate \"yes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d as to each ofthe followine:\n'!n\u20ac \u2019n Yes No requested Of\n___ Pumping information was:pmizlodahy the owner, occupant, or Board pfl-leath\nWere any ofthe system components pumped out in the previous two weeks ?\nHas the system received normal flows in the previous two week period ?\nHave large volumes of water been introduced to the system recently or as part of this inspection ?\nWere as built plans of the system obtained and examined? (lf they were not available note as N/A)\nWas the facility or dwelling inspected for signs of sewage back up ?\nWasthesite's tdf`r` fb, ut?\n\nut pec e o sl\u00a7l;s\u00a3__,m&k_L\n\nWere all system com iients, e uding the SAS, loc ted on site ?\n\n \n\n_ _M ___ Were the septic tank manholes uncovered_. opened, and the interior of the tank inspected for the condition\nofthe baffles or tees, material ofconstruction, dimensions, depth ofliquid, depth ofsludge and depth ofscum ?\n\nX Was the facility owner (and occupants if different from owner) provided with information on the proper\nmaintenance ot`subsurface sewage disposal systems ? `\n\nThe size and location of the Soil Absorption System (SAS) on the site has been}\u00a7t\u00a7\u00a2\u00a7Y-g\u00a7\u00a7based on:\nYes no approximated\n_ Existi.ng information For example, a plan at the Board ofl-lealth. l\n/ _` Approximated -\n`__ Mt{in the field (ifany ofthe failure criteria related to Part .C is at issue approximation ofdistance\nis unacceptable) [3 10 CM_R l$.302(3){b)_l\n\nrita ii /G fo \"\n___ \u2018ii\u00a3}.'-\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nUC\u20aclSe 3205-CV-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 12_ Of 23\n\n`\\_/\n\nOFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM - NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPF.CTION FORIVI\nPART C\nSYSTEM INFORMATION\n\nP='OP\u00a2I`W Addr\u00a2$$= _\"\u2018Lfl\u00a7__BEcS_e_tsmis_-_thad, East Otis\n\nOwner: Q+- earn a\n\nDate ofluspection:\n\u00a7 FLO& E]ONDITIONS\n\nRESlDENTIAL\nNumber of bedrooms (design).\u2018 ___j)_ Number of bedrooms factual): 2 _\nr=? DESIGN flow based on 310 CMR_._ lj.lOB (l\u2019or example: l 10 gpd x # ofbedrooms}:\nNl.tmber of current residents:\"fv_\u00a7:\" j___\u00e9 \\\\ _`__\nDoes residence have a g\u00e9bage grinder yes or no): _|\u00a7Lo\nis laundry on a separate sewage system gee or no): _N_Q fifyes separate inspection required]\nLaundry system inspected (yes or no): ____Q S\u20acpara te Sys tem .\nSeasonal use: (yes or no):N_O__\nWater meter readingsl if available {last 2 years usage (gpd)): Well , no meter .\nSu ppumpl_-yes-or-no-:-_t ____\nast date ofoccu_pancy: _E];E_S_Ent`\\\n\nIAMNDUSTRIAL N . A .\n\nType ofestabiisl'tment:\n\nDesign flow (based on 310 CMR 15_203): g~pcl\nBasis of design flow (seatsfpersonsfsqft,etc.):\nGrease trap present (yes or no): ___\nlnd_usn'ial waste holding tank present (yes or no): _\n\nNon-saniiary waste discharged to the Title 5 system (_ves or no): _\nWater meter reedings, if available: ' .\n\nLast date ofoecupa.ncy/use:\n\n \n\nlln.l\u00a7_now'i`j,\"\n\n_ r_.-\"\n\n      \n\n \n\nOT\u00a7{ER (describc):\n\n \n\nMWW `\"'i\"\"\"\"\u201c'G-ENERALinr_c_)RMATIONt\\___\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\"\"'P\"iimping Records --._.__ ____ ~`___\n/./\" l Source ofinformation: Nn __m,mp,' mg rolanqu F_.um,_q_ -\\__\n\u00a7 Was system pumped as part of the lnspeetion (yes or no): \\\n\u2018-t_\\ 0 IFY\u00a2S\\ VOlllme pumped: ____gallons - I-low was quantity pumped determined? ,\n\"\"~Reasonfor,pg_mpi._ng: _/\n__________ /\n_____ _______ _ __/\n\"\"- - \u00a2._,____`_____ ` _____ ______ ____________-4\n\nTYPE OF SYSTEM \" \"\n__X_ Septic taril<,xliimtihlitiocchnx, soil absorption system\n____ Single eesspool\n_ Overilow cesspool\n___ Privy\nN_Q__ Shared system {yes or no) (ii`yes, attach previous inspection records, ii`any)\n__ Innovative/Altemative technology. Attach a copy ofthe current operation and maintenance contract (to be\nobtained E'om system owner)\n__ Tight tank __ At\u2018tach a copy ofthe DEP approval\n\n__ Other (describe):\n\n \n\n~r-\n\nApproximate age ot`all components, date installed (ii`l-e`nown) and source oi`information:\nNew tank June 29 , 2001, rest Of system unknown.\n\nWere sewage odors detected when arriving at the site [yes or no): HO\n\nrita a /0/0 t\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n7 - ~,,~ Ca$e 3205-CV-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/_2005 Page _13 Of 23\n\n\\._,'\n\nOFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM - NOT FOR VOLU_NTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM\nPART C\nSYSTEM INFOR_MATION (continued)\n\ntwmmnyaddnn: 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis\n\nOwner:\n\n-_._,._Siea_r_ns\nDate ofInspection: gngnst 16 2001\n\nBUILDIN -W=E=R-+lecat\\_\u00a7site plan)\n\n \n\n    \n\nepth below grader 3 0 \"\n\n \n  \n\ncast iron _;L4O PVC __other (explain}:\n\n  \n \n \n \n\n, venting, evidence ofleal<age, etc.):\n\nms |\\_,\\ 9 on conditionoj _\nal with no evidence of leakage or ventlng.\n\nSewer a ears norm\n>lnc/'\\Ji\u201c'i'l\u00a2\\|~.\\\u00a3 pp\n\nl\naj \u00bbo ua\".\u2019 entitle \u00a7 trw\n\nsalfi be '\"\"sarr)csm- . ktelegramseaman\nepth below grade: \u00a7 ~\n< Material___<;i_`_;t_)_niu)lie:_i :__concrete _____metal___r'lberglass polyethylene\nam ` '\n\nI_f\"t'ank is metal list age: ___ ls age confirmed by a Certit\u2018icate of Compliance {yes or no): ____ (attach a copy of\n\ncertifie ate) _ n\nljmmgom;d 6 X 5' x 48\" effective depth. w~i{aenr& sum pMJ M_(b\u20ac? >\n\nSludge depth: y _L\n\nDistance from top o'fsludge to bottom of outlet tee or bafHe:\n\nScum thickness: '\n\nDista.nce from top ofscum to top of outlet tee or bai\u2019fle:\n\nDistance from bottom ofscu.m to bottom of outlet tee or baffle:\n\nHow were dimensions determined:\n\nComments (on pumping reoommendations, inlet and o\n\nas related to outlet i.nvert, evidence of ieai<age, etc.):\nTank=eis new and has not been used. DEP recommends oumoinq every\n\n(:_i_:eajs`or when the tank is 1/3 full of solids See Permit #01-36.\nj i\\Al) 'lo Ft.lrn? T'i Ou_'i l\u2018\\A`_l U{'\\ `2_,,.`-{_; j\nGREASE TRAP: ___(locate on site plan)\n\nN n .\nDepth below \u00a7aciae: Eund - _\nMaterial oi` construction: ____concrete ____metal ____f`iberglass polyethylene __other\n\n(explain):\nDimensions:\n\nScum thickness:\n\nDistance E'oi`n top ofscum to top of outlet tee or bat\u00b0t`le:\nDistance from bottom ofscum to bottom ofoutlet tee or baffle:\n\nDatc oflast pumping: _\nCotnrnents (on pumping recommendations inlet and outlet tee or battle condition, structural integrity, liquid levels\n\nas related to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.):\n\n \n\n \n\nutlettee or baffle condition structural integrity, liquid levels\n\n \n\n \n\nFile # /0/0 7\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n-Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 14 of 23\n\nOFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM - NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYS'I`EM INSPECTION FORM\nPA_RT C\nSYSTEM INFORD/IATION (eonnnued)\n\nPropertyAddress: 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis\n_______`h\nOwner:\n\n_____S.l;ea_v;n_s____\nDate oflnspection: gngngl_- 15 2091\n\n'I`IGHT or HOLDING TANK: (tank must be pumped airline ofinspection)(locate on site plan]\n\nDep[ii\u2018lobr\u00e9i%wfgi?a\u2018d\u00a7d ' _\nMaterial of construction: concrete metal Eberglass polyethylene other(explatn):\n\n \n\n \n\nDimensions:\nCapaciry: gallons\nDesign Flow: gallonsiday\n\n \n\nAlarm present (yes or no):\n\nAlarm level: Ala.rm in working order (yes or no): ___\nDar.e of` last pumping: .\n\nComments (condition of alarm and float switches etc.):\n\n \n\n \n\nDISTR_I_BU:PION-BOQC: (ifpresent must be opened)(locate on site plan) Depth below grade :\n\nC)ne#fo\"g\"nE\" r.->\nDep \u2018ofviiquid'levei above outlet invert:\n\nCom.ments (note if`box is level and distribution to outieE equal, any evidence ofsolids canyover, any evidence ol'\"\nleakage into or out of box, etc_): '\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nPUMP CHAMBER: (locare on site plan)\nNone found.\n\nPumps in working order (yes or no):\n\nAlan~ns in working order (yes or no):\n\nComments (note condition ot`pu.mp ehamber, condition ofpumps and appurtenances etc.):\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\ni-\\\n\nsite a /D\u2019\u00b0 . _ `\n\n \n\n \n\n   \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Pege 115 of 23\nPage 9 ol` l 1 . d\n\nOFFICIAL INSPECTION FOR.M - NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSA.L SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM\nPART C\nSYSTEM INFORMATION (continued)\n\nProperiy Address: 1435 gege;[};gj]: Road, East Oi;j_S\nOwner.' 5\n\n_--_._.._S,tea;_n\nDate oflnspection: allgu\u00a7i_ 36 2 0 01\n\nSOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM (SAS): (locate on site plan1 excavation not required)\nLocation may be approximated by non-intrusive methods.\n\n \n\nIfSAS not located explain why.'\n\n \n\n \n\nType\n~_; _x_ leaching pits, number: _\u2018\u00a2__\nleaching eha.mbers, number:\nleaching galleries, number: __\nleaching n'enches, number, length:\nleaching fields, number, dimensions:\noverflow cesspool, number: ___\n\ninnovative/alternative system Type/name oftechnology: -\ne, level ot`ponding, damp soil, condition ofvegetation,\n\n \n\n \n\nComrnents (note condition ot` soil, signs of hydraulic failu.r\n\netc.): ,\nThe SAS was monitt='l~t==ri and riy q md Fnr forum\nf.lm_and_s.b_nmed\n\nl-\\'r-\u00a2::\\L'nuj\" mmi-ian h\\rr=l-r-=n`|-lr-\u00bb F '\n'L' :I l \u201c\"'\u201c '\u00b0' \"\n\nTesting witnessed by Jack Conboy, OBOH. '\n\n     \n \n \n\nnn =:'i\u00a2_'jnc\n\n \n   \n \n\ncr abnormal `vegetatio\n\nCESSPOOLS: {cesspool must umped as part of ins ection locate onsite plan)\n\nNum]i\\ieor \u00a7\u00a7 cgl?l\u2019i'\u00e9iir\u00a7tion:\n\nDepth - topol`liquid to inlet invert:\n\nDepth ofsolids layers\nDepth ofscum lsyer:\nDimensions of cesspool:\nMaterials of construction:\nIndication of groundwater inflow (ycs or no):\nComments (note condition ofsoil, signs ot'hydraulic failu:e, level ofponding, condition of vegetation, etc.):\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nPRIVY: flocate on site plan)\nNone foundz\nMacerials of consu'ucnon:\n\nDimensions:\n\nDepth of solids:\nCorn_ments (note condition ofsoil, signs ot'hydraulic failure, level ot`ponding\n\n \n\n, condition ol`vegetation. etc.):\n\nw-\n\nFile\n\n# lO/D 9\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u00a7 S 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Pagel\u20ac of 23\nPage gofell g\n\n,/\n\nOFFICIA_L INSPECTION FORM - NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSUR_FACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM\nPART C\nSYSTEM INFORMATION {continued)\n\nProperry Address: 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis\n\n \n\n \n\nOwner: 5\n\n_______S_l;aa_r_n\nDateol`lnspecttott: Dngust 16' 2001\n\nSKETCH OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM NO\"I' 'I'O SCALE l l\nProvicle a sketch of the sewage disposal system including ties to at least two permanent reference landmarks or\nbenchmarks Locate all wells within 100 ieet. Locate where public water supply enters the building\n\n/\\/::.=..) 5::_\\\u00a2:>1-_' L\n/ urea-wsi\nM_\n\n \n\n \n\n,'l\ng @'rm.: c.s{)\ni, Q\u00a5=.;>:;s_'? -1')\u201d~\"'~1-\n\n--____' \"' ~;:~\"_~_\"\"3'\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n    \n\njfl\u00a7\n\n\u2018.`\\\njuridile\nq j'l'?j\"\\ '\n\nsite # /C-YO 10\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n-\u00bbb~ -Gase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 177 of 23\n\n,\n\nOFFI CLA_L INSPECTION FOR_l\\T-\u00bb NOT FOR VOLWTARY ASSESSMENTS\nSUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FOR_M\nPART C\nSYSTEM INFOR.MATION (continued)\n\nPmp.=_-rry.e,ddress; 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis\n_____________\n\nOwner: Stearns.\n\nDate oflnspection: August 16! 2001\n\nEEX_AM\nSlope t Varies to steep. `\nurface er None\nCll\u20acCl< cellar Dr'y\nShallow wells None found_\n\nEstirnated depth to ground water 8 feet t\n\n \n \n \n   \n\nPlease indicate (checl-:) all methods used to determine the high ground water elevations\nthained &otn system design plans on record - It` checked, date ofdesign plan reviewed:\ng Observed site (abutting property/observation hole within 150 feet ofSAS) L'~ lsc noel wt\"l:.l\u00bb;l loe `ii\\e Cr\u20ac@ l< l l\n_o,u`a Checked with local Board ofHealth-explain: \u00a2'R D/ 1> 7%*7 lC'\u00a2\u2018-\\(C uPh : 11 \u2019 v \\\n'B_\u00a5 \\:;z_ X Checl<ed with local excavatots, installers~ (attach documentation) gee permit # 01 _ 3 5 ' t\n\n\u2019\\\u2019 `Accessed USGS database-explain:\n\\. _\"_ l t _'_H_\"\u2018_-r_~\u201c___\n. ` _\n\nCBYN>\u20ac estimated\n\n'F You must describe how you eseuhdjshedldie high ground water elevation:\n\n` The excavation for the new septic tank went to B\u2019 below orade and\nwas drv in porous oravellv soils. \u00a7ulvert below the svstem was dry.\n\n/\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nwj(\u20ac\u00a7 /;ool was n F\\J_gjvj/D_F;( wagon era names\n\nfL_lFl'l\u2019~Ff lLC\u00a7\u2018]L will N-\"i l)\u00a2)'l\u2019llL\\e /\n\nge, toe\u00a7 Drtl\n\n \n\n \n\n-. o \u201c ' '\nl/l'l\\g{'e if /.re Ctt/Ur'r'zi JL[\u00a7%- n ia@,\u00a2=,()\n\npile # /O/`O ll\n\n \n\n \n\n   \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 13 of 23\n\nWater\n\nneport#: 72601372\n\n1 l resting ' Date Collected:\n\n \n\n     \n  \n     \n \n\n  \n\n7/24/01\n\n`\n\" \u00a7 Date Received 7/26/01\ntab canineanen Ne. 11er non NY ' ' Page 1 of 4 Date A;';'|';zed: 7/26/01\n\n \n\nCustorner: Sullivan lnspectlons\nP.O. Bo)<# 4052\nEast Otis, MA 01029-\n\nClient : #lOlU Kerry Steams \"'\"\"'\nSamp|e\nLocation: 1495 Reservoir Rd.\nEast Otis, MA\n\nMatrix: Drinking Water\n\nSamp|e `l'his sample taken by David S. at 02:45 Pl\\/l on 7/24/01.\n\nPurchase Order #: Descriptjon Point ofCo||ection: Kitchen.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n* Title 5 Scan Report *\n\n \n\n        \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nRES U LTS\nTotal Collform Absent Present Anima|lVegetationa| Bacterla (Health Related) Dl100\nl, Nitrate 0.68 5.0 mg.'L indicator of Bio|oglea| Waste (Health Re|ated) 0.10\nAmmonia Not Detected 5.0 mg:'L indicator of Wasta O-U\u2018l\n\n*= Outside of Recommended Limits\nVisit us on the Web\n\nThe integrity/ofthe sample and results are dependent on the quality ofsampl\nmodified to accomadate transportationl AA_A Water T\\:sling shall b\n\n \n\ning. The results apply only to the actual sample leslcd. Somc methods may be\nc held harmless l`rom any liability arising out of the use efsuch results.\n\n \n\n \n\n1130 C.\u2018r::\u00bbMMERc:rAL RczAD 0 L.l-:\\:tMrNsTl=-.R, MA 51453 o t9'7EH E4U~294T\nth-'EJ@AAAWATERTEET|NE.\\:DM 0 HTTP://wwW.AAAWATERTESTlN\n\n6 lEUUl' 344-99'7\u2019?\nE.EBM\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP\n\nWater\n\nDocument 22-2\n\nFiled 07/29/20\n\nl\n\n05 Page 19 of 23\n\nReport #: 72601872\n\nf regt\u00a3a pate coileeted: 7/24/01\nl g Date Received: 7!25/Ol\ntab certification Ne. 11er ooi-i NY Page 2 me 4 gate Anaiyzed; 7/26/01\n\n \n\n \n\nC ustomer: Su||ivan |nspections\n\nP.O. BOX # 4052\nEast OliS, l\\llA 01029-\n\nPurchase Order #:\n\nC|ient : #lGlO Kerry Steams\n\nSample\nLocation: 1495 Reservoir\nEast Otis, l\\/lA\n\nlVlatrix: Drinking Water\n\nRd.\n\nSample Thi's sample taken by Davld S. at 02:45 Plvl on 7/24/01.\n\nDescription Polnt of Co|lection: Kitchen.\n\n \n\n \n\n* Tit|e 5 Scan Report \u201c\u2018\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nRESU LTS\n\nlug/Ll (UQ\"L) (HQIL)\n\nBenzene: Not Detected 5.0 0.5\nElromobenzene: Not Detecfecl 0.5\nBrorciochlorometh ane: Not Detected 0.5\nBrornodichloromethane: Not Detected 0.5\nBromoform: Not Detected 0.5\nBromomethane: Not Detected 0.5\nn-Butylbenzene: Not Detected 0.5\nsec-Eutylbenzene: Not Detected 0.5\ntert-Butylbenzene: Not Detected 0.5\nCarhon-Tetrach|oride: Not Detet:ted 5.0 0.5\nChlorodibromomethane: Not Dete'cted 0.5\nCh|oroethane: Not Detected 0.5\nChloroform: Not Detected 0.5\nChlciro methanc-: l'\u00a3ot Detected 0.5\no-Ch|orotoluene: Not Detected 0.5\np-Chlorotoluene: Not Detected 0.5\n1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane: Not Detected 0.5\nDibromomethane: Not Detected 0.5\n1,2-Dibromoethane: Not Detected 0.5\nm-chhloroberizene: Not Detected 0.5\no-Dichlorobenzene: Not Detected 600.0 0.5\npara-chhlorobenzene: Not Detected 5.[] 0.5\nJRClq -\\-/~L\u00a7> Dichloromethane: <._ 0.79 5.0 0.5\n\n=\u2018s= Outside of Recomrnended Limits\nVlsit us on the Web\n\n \n\n \n\nThe integrity of the sample and results are dependent on the quality ofsampling. The results apply only to the actual sample tested. Some methods may be\nmodified to accomadate transportation. AAA Water Tesiing shall be held harmless l`rom any liability arising out ol` the use ol'such results.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n`lE|El Er:iMMERc:iAl_ Ri:iAt:) d l_ei:.iMiNs'rt-:R, MA 51453 d (9'7El 540-2941 d tEElDJ 344-99'7'7`\n\nlNFD@AAAwATERTEsTlNG.c:nM d H\u2018rTP://www.AAAwATe-.nres\u2018ri~G.r:l:iM\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n,\u00a2-l\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP\n\nWater\n\n  \n\n_ resting\n\nLab Certificafic>n NO. 11675 DOH NY\n\nDocument 22-2\n\nPage 3 of 4\n\nFiled 07/29/2005\n\n)\n\nPage 20 of 23\n\nReport #: 72601872\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCustomer: Sul!ivan lnspectic)ns\nP.O. Box # 4052\nEast'Otis, MA 01029-\n\nPurchase Order #:\n\nDate Collected:\nDate Received:\n\nDate Analyzed:\n\nC|ient : #1010 Kerry Steams\n\nSamp|e\n\nLocation: 1495 Reservoir Rd.\nEast Otis, MA\n\nMatrix: Dr:`nking Water\nSarnp[e This sample taken by David S. at 02:45 PM on 7/24/01.\n\nDean-ptjon Poinf of Col|ection: Kitchen.\n\n7/'24/01\n7/25/'01\nT/ZS/Oi\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n* Title 5 Scan Reporl *\n\n \n\nDich lo rodifluoromethane:\n1,1-Dic:hloroethane:\n1,2-chhloroethane:\n1,1-Dichloroethylene:\ncis-1,Z-Dichloroethylene:\ntrans-1,2-Dichioroethylene:\n1,2-Dic:hloropropane:\n1,3-D i\u00a2:hloropropane:\n\n2,2 Dichloropropane:\n\n1,1 Dichloropropene:\n1,3-Dich|oropropene:\ntrans-1,3-Dichloropropene:\nEthy|benzene:\nFluorotrichlorumethane:\nHexachlorobutadiene:\nIsopropylbenzene:\np-lsopr'opyltoiuene:\nMonochlorobenzene:\nNapthalene:\nn-Propy|benzene:\n\nStyrene:\n1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane:\n\u2018l,\u2018l,2,2-Tetrachl0roethane:\n\n*= Outside of Recommended Limits\n\n \n\nRESULTS\n\n(ug/L)\n\n \n\n \n\nlugle\n\nNot Detected\nNot Detec:ted\nNot Detected 5.0\n\nNot Detected 7.0\n\nNot Detected 70.0\nNot Detecled 100.0\nNot Datected 5.0\n\nNot Detected\nNot Detected\nNot Deter.'ted\nNot Detected\nNot Detec:ted\nNot Detecied\nNat'Deiected\nNot Detecied\nNot Detected\nNot Detected\nNot Detec:tad\nNot Detected\nNot Detected\nNot Detected 100.0\nNot Detected\nNot Detec:tecl\n\n700.0\n\n100.0\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nVisit us on the Web\n\n \n\n \n\n(ugl'L}\n\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\nD.5\n0.5\n0.5\n'0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nlC|EJ Cl:iMMER':lAL. Rr:lAD d LE.i:lMlNSTER, MA 01453 d\nrNFu@AAAWATERT'ESTINE.l:DM 4 HTTP://ww\n\nl\u00a7'?E} 540-2941\nw.AAAwA'rERTE.=aTrNcs.c:r:M\n\n \n\n \n\na c50m1344-99'77\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 -Page 21 of 23\n\ni ` e___, _,\n\nWater Repen #: 72501872\n' l ~ pate celleeied: 7124/01\nrestong\n\n \n\n  \n\nDaie Received: 7/26/01\n\n \n\n \n\nLab certification Ne. weis non NY Page 4 Of 4 gate Ana|yzed; 7/26/01\nCustomer: Su|livan |nspections Client: #lOlO Kerry Steams\nP.O._ Box # 4052 Sample\nEast Otis, MA 01029- Location: 1495 Reservoir Rd.\nEast Otls, MA\n\nNlatrlx: Drinl<ing Water\n\nSample This sample taken by Davld S. at 02;45 Plv\u2018| on 7/24/01.\nPurchase Order #: Descn'ptjon Poinf 01c CO||eCiiOn: Kllchen.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u00bb_\u00a2__- -_=_.ima....i - ___________ .\n\n* Title 5 Scan Report *\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nRES ULTS\n\n(ugn_) (ugic.) (ugn_)\nTetrach|oroethylene: Not Defected 5.0 0.5\nToluene: Not Detected 1000.0 7 0.5\n1,2,3~Trichlorobenzene: Not Detected lG.5\n1,2,4~Triohl\u2018orobenzene: Not Deteeted 70.0 0.5\n1 ,1,1 -Trichloroethane: Not Detected 2003 0-5\n1 ,1,2-Trich|oroethane: ` Not Detected 5-0 0'5\nTrichloroethyiene: Not Detecteci 5-0 0-5\n1,2,3-Trichloropropane: Not Del:ected 0\u20185\n1,2,4-Trimethylbenzeno: Not Deter:ted 0'5`\n1,3,5-Trimerhylbenzene; Ne`r oetecied ` \u00b0\u20185\nVinyi chieride: Not oeeeeied 2\u2018\u00b0 ' 0'5\nm + p-Xylenes: Not Detected ' '\n\n \n\n*= Outsicle of Recommended Limits\nVisit us on the Web\n\nThe integrity ofthe sample and results are dependent on the qualicy oi`sampfing. The resu|i.s apply only to the nciual sample iesied. Some methods may be\nmodified 10 aecomadace transportation AA_A Water Tescing shall be held harmless from any liability arising out oi`the use ot`such resultsl\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n1130 canem:r,-.\\:_ Pavo 4 L_\u00a2~:i:iM\u00a2Ns-ren, MA 01453 a haven 540-2941 c facial 344-99'7*7' _\nlNFD@AAAWATE:RTr-:ST|NE.\u00a2:DM t HTTP:!/www.AAAwATc-:RTi-:ETING.\u00a2:r.'_'lM\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n' 2 of 23\nCase 3'05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2905 Page 2 _\n\na Towi\\i oro-rts\n\n-,-__.\n_\"' \"'I\\\n\nw _ . _ a __-\" \"~.__\n\n_ ` _ eoAnD or sisteme \\i\\ w\\\u20ac(3<1(\u201c') Q\\\\`\\\u201c\"UE ,A`\nscene oi= I-EALTH \"i@ 5 .-\";~ .=\"<P\u201cF\u201d\u201cZQ,\"'-.,\"\u00e9\\\"-.\nToWnHaU,MainStreet Q\\\\)\\ O\\ _F_ E\"`\\JuHEm'-\"\"i ' \u00a7\n\n_ P.O. Bo>c 237, Ol`is, Massac:husetts 01253 _ `<,Q. \\\u00a9 \"-,.z\"-. 1810 ` '.-\"\nTeiephene: (413) 269~0103 ill \"_._-%`,;;. .{.<$'-\u2018\nFa><.- (413) 269-nice ,-\"\n4 :i\u00a7.ta\u00a7..\nMr. Kerry\"$re_a`_r'hs ` n\nP_O_ Box 678 l\nOtis, MA 01053 - September Il, 2001\n\nRe: T;itle 5 Inspection1495 Reservoir Road, Otis\n\nDear Mr. Steams:\n\nA Section C (2) of the inspection report. _\n\n_Based on the information submitted to date, the septic system serving this property\npasses, Title 5 lnspection requirements l \u00a7 ' l _\n\nYou_are advised that the existing septic system is substandard in comparison to existing\nregulations A passing TitIe 5 inspection should not be construed as a guarantee that the\nexisting septic system Will continue to properly function for any period oftimc.\n\nShould you have any questions, please contact me at 413-586-7722 or the Board of\n\nHealth at 413 -2_69-0103.\n\nS\u00a7\u00a7c\u00a7rely,\neter J?\\\n\nAgent,\n\n \n\nCc: Board ofHeaIth, lack Conboy, Davic:l Sullivan\n\n. d \u2018 .- \u00a7\n`Tl\" '* pe ee<;sli ~ ~ll\\e ins(eeiiei\\ reported sin+ecl ~lli~$'lnte_:_l\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n  \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 22-2\n\nFiled 07/29/2005\n\nPage 23 of 23\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nPostage\nCerlllied Fes\n\nFieturn Fteciept Fea\n(Endorsemenl Flequired)\n\nRestricted Delivery Fee\n[Endorsemen! Reoulred)\n\n?D|]E ELlLlJ |]UUL+ B?':lla 5535\n\n   \n   \n \n \n   \n\nTotai Postage & Faes $ l \u00bb\n\n39'5[.19\numw ed\n\nf\n\n3 VlSOd`S`l'l\n\n \n\n   \n \n\n.\u00bbAA.\u00a2.A.\u00a2...Q.Q\n\n \n\n        \n\n         \n    \n\n \n\nCinr, S!ate, Zl\u2018P+4\n\n  \n\n \n\nerF'oBoxNa..- QO\u201c{ il(\",w)+lei_r\n0 .\u2018\n\n \n\nii 01.;1\u00a73 _\n\n   \n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:08-07:00","document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501759745","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.823869-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.082833-08:00","date_filed":"2005-07-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-07-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kerry P. Stearns, and Laurie C. Nikituk, filed by Ricky L. Moore, Kathryn M. Moore. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibits to Complaint)(Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299450/","id":7299450,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509153/","id":5509153,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/21/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.816259-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.074087-08:00","sha1":"105fbf0a6cac8748094acf3b320aac22a2390019","page_count":1,"file_size":24319,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.21.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.21.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"1 12 25 15:45 4134454925 RICHARD J DBR pAGE lag/m\nW 8 aease 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 21 Filed 07/\u00a7%\u00b0/2%56\"5 F>age1 on\n\nUNI'IBD STATES DISTRIC'I` COURT\nDISTR.ICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\nWESTERN DIVISION\n\n \n\nklch L. MOORE and KATHRYN\nM. MOORE,\nPlaimiffs\n\nv. Civil Action No. 05-3001 O-MAP\n\nKERR.Y P. ST'EARJ\\IS, LAURIE C.\nNIKITUK and POND PAS\u2019I'URE, INC.,\nDefcnda.uts\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nNow comes the Dcfenclam, Laurie C. Nikimh and her counsel and affzrm, pmsumt to\n\ncost of conducting the full course - - and various alternative courses - - of titus litigation; and (b)\n\nResp\u00a2crfuuy sumined_.\n\nLAURIB C. NIKITUK,\nDefendant\n\nBy:\nHcrA\n\nRicha.rd J. O\u2019Brien_. Esquire\n75 North Strcct, Suite 310\nPi_ttst`mld, MA 0120}\n\n\u2018 (413) 499~5656\nBBO #552285\n\n\u00a2'// 54 /' / ////5/\u00a27 /\n\n_/;L/mi\u00e9 c. Nikiruk, D\u00a2f\u00a2nd\u00e9n\n\\4, /\n\n \n\nnar\u00a2d.- my _g\u00a7:' 2005\n\n.]'L.L-lE~EBE|E f\"!DN BB=E\u00a7\\PN ID: F\u2019QGE:3\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:22-07:00","document_number":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501758644","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Certification pursuant to Local Rule 16.1","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.809999-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.062250-08:00","date_filed":"2005-07-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-07-25.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Laurie C. Nikituk.(Healy, Bethaney)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299449/","id":7299449,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509152/","id":5509152,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/20/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.804322-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.054351-08:00","sha1":"2ab98753a51eff9cdddc37d7833962b0bb1a1756","page_count":2,"file_size":8518,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.20.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.20.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"       Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP      Document 20      Filed 07/25/2005    Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M.   )\nMOORE,                          )\n                     Plaintiffs )\n                                )\n           v.                   )               Civil Action No. 05-30010-MAP\n                                )\n                                )\nKERRY P. STEARNS and LAURIE C. )\nNIKITUK,                        )\n                     Defendants )\n\n\n                                 SCHEDULING ORDER\n                                    July 25, 2005\n\nNEIMAN, U.S.M.J.\n\n        The following schedule was established at the initial scheduling conference this\n\nday:\n\n        1.    The agreed-upon amended complaint shall be filed by August 5, 2005,\n\n              and answered by August 26, 2005.\n\n        2.    The parties shall complete their automatic disclosures by September 30,\n\n              2005.\n\n        3.    Motions to add parties shall be filed by November 30, 2005.\n\n        4.    All non-expert discovery shall be completed by January 17, 2006.\n\n        5.    Counsel shall appear for a case management conference on January 19,\n\n              2006, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom Three.\n\n        IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n                                                /s/ Kenneth P. Neiman\n                                                KENNETH P. NEIMAN\n                                                U.S. Magistrate Judge\n\fCase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP   Document 20   Filed 07/25/2005   Page 2 of 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:37:27-07:00","document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950626929","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.798770-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.044557-08:00","date_filed":"2005-07-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-07-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED, cc:cl. Agreed upon amended complaint shall be filed by 8/5/05, and answered by 8/26/05; auto discl compl by 9/30/05; mots to add parties filed by 11/30/05; non-expert disc compl by 1/17/06; case mgmt conf. set for 1/19/06 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom Three.(Healy, Bethaney)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299448/","id":7299448,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509151/","id":5509151,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/19/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.791720-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.036076-08:00","sha1":"ad54fd3bc55a512884263770175c12bbbed29a5c","page_count":2,"file_size":28766,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.19.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.19.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 19 Filed 07/19/2005 Paget of 2\n\nUNITED STATES DlSTRlCT COURT\nDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\nWESTERN D[VISION\n\n \n\n\\r.,[_\\.z..~,i.\u00a2`-\u00a5- ..\u2026_.,,--:\n'i, i.\\ili L,l_;\u2019.s_\n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN\nM. MOORE,\nPlaintiffs\n\nv_ Civil Action No. 05-300lO-MAP\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C.\nNIKITUK and POND PASTURE, INC.,\nDefendants\n\n \n\nDEFENDANT1 LAURIE C. NIKITUK\u2019S CERTIFICATION, PER LOCAL RULE 16.1\n\nNow comes the Defendant, Laurie C. Nikituk, and her counsel and affirm, pursuant to\nLocal Rule l6.l (D) (3), that they have conferred (a) with a view to establishing a budget for the\ncost of conducting the full course - - and various alternative courses - - of this litigation; and (b)\nto consider the resolution of the litigation through the use of alternative dispute resolution\nprograms, such as those outlined in L.R. 16.4.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nLAURIE C. NIKITUK,\nDefendant\n\nBy-'/:c `\\&\nHerlA}tdmeY/\nRichard J. O\u2019Brien, Esquire\n75 North Street, Suite 310\nPittstield, MA 01201\n(413) 499-5656\nBBO #552285\n\n \n\nLaurie C. Nikituk, Defendant\n\nDated; July ifr/2005\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 19 Filed 07/19/2005 Page 2 of 2\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI, Richard J. O\u2019Brien, hereby certify that on this fm day of July, 2005_, l caused a copy of\nthe foregoing Certifieation to be forwarded to Bradford B. l\\/loir, Esquire, l\\/loir & Ross, 45\nBroad Street, Suite 2, Westfield, l\\/[assachusetts 01085 and Peter J. Brewer, Esquire, 32 Mahaiwe\n\nStreet, Great Barrington, l\\/lA 01230.\n\nRichard l. O\u2019Brieri, Esquire\n\n \n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:36-07:00","document_number":"19","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950615227","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Certification pursuant to Local Rule 16.1","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.784722-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.025696-08:00","date_filed":"2005-07-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-07-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Laurie C. Nikituk.(Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299447/","id":7299447,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509150/","id":5509150,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/18/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.777513-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.016667-08:00","sha1":"a907716898b074a4fb525d572074cc77c524e796","page_count":5,"file_size":142742,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.18.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.18.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 18 Filed 07/15/2005 Paget of 5\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nton rate t)lsratc_t or M/\\ss/\\Ct~tusl\u00a7rrs\n\n\u2018v\u2019\\/ESTEP\\N Di\\/ESION Docket No.05-3 OOOl ()-MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE\n\nJOINT STATEMENT\nPlaintiffs\n\nV.\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C. NIKITUK\nand POND PASTURE, lnc.\n\nDet`endants\n\n \n\n \n\nCounsel for the above parties have conferred and submit the foilowing joint statement\npursuant to L.R. 16.1:\n\nPronosed Pretrial. Sched'ule\n\nl. Each party shali make initiai disclosures as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a) (l) on\nor before Septeniber 30, 2005.\n\n2. Non~expert discovery shall be completed on or before January 15, 2006.\n\n3. l\\/Iotions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 be tiled and heard before October 31,\n2005.\n\n4. Counsel for each party request a conference at the conclusion of the non~expert\ndiscovery period for a case management conference on January fS, at 2130 p.m.\n\na. To determine a period of expert discovery if needed or to set a trial date at that\ntime\n\nb. Counsei also agrees to be prepared to discuss at that time possibilities of\nsettlement and mediation, and;\n\nc. To establish a filing deadline for Motions for Sunnnary Judgnient.\n\nCertiticates\n\nAttached are the certifications of counsel and a representative of each party pursuant to\nL.R. 16.1 (D) (3).\n\n\\\\D3xbk311\\m%r\\Civil Litigation\\Moore, Rick and Katby\\Couzt Filings\\executed Joint\nStatement.doc\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 18\n\nDocket No.05-300010-MAP\n\nDated:\n\n.luly 15, 2005\n\nFiled 07/15/2005 Page 2 of 5\n\nTHE PLAINTIFFS\nRicky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore\nBy their attorney,\n\n/s/ Bradt`ord B. Moir\n\n \n\nBradford B. Moir, Esquire\nMOIR & ROSS\n\n45 Broad Street, Suite #2\nWestfield, MA 01085\nTel. (413) 568-1957\n\nFax. (4l3) 562~4691\nBBO# 350600\n\nTHE DEFENDANT\nKerry P. Steanis\n\n/s/ Peter J . Brewer\n\n \n\nPeter J. Brewer, Esq.\n\n2 Mahaiwe Street\n\nPost Oftice Box 1059\n\nGreat Bai~rington, l\\/IA 01023\nTel. (413)-528-6290\n\nFax. (413)-528-6283\n\nBBO# 545604\n\nTHE DEFENDA_NT\nLaun`e C. Nikituk\n\n \n\nRi.chard J. O\u2019Brien, Esquire\n75 North Street, Suite 3 1 0\nPittsfield, MA 01201\n(413)- 499-5656\n\nBBO# 552285\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 18 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 3 of 5\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFoa THE Dtsralc:r or MAssACHusETTs\n\nW\u00a7S'l\"`l\u00a7l{l\\l Dl\\/lSlOl\\l Docl<et No.05-300l O-MAP_\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE\n\nAG-ENDA OF MATTERS\nPlaintiffs\n\nV.\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C. NIKITUK\nand POND PASTURE, lNC.\n\nDefendants\n\n \n\n \n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ld(b), the parties certify that they have conferred and the following\nissues Will be addressed before the court on July 25, 2005.\n\nl. The plaintiffs Would like to discuss filing a motion to amend their complaint to clarify the\nalleged contamination of the Water. In particular, the `Plaintiffs Would like to amend the\naverment contained in Paragraph 30 of the Plai.ntiffs First Arnended Complaint, Wliich\nreads as follows\n\n30. The Plaintiffs had the drinking water supply tested\nand the test revealed abnormally high levels of nitrate in the\nwater.\n\nl`he plaintiffs Woul.d like to amend the complaint to read as follows\n\n30. Tne Plaintiffs had. the drinking\u2018 water supply' tested\nand the test revealed. that the water DID NOT meet public\ndrinking water bacteriological standards, and the plaintiffs\nwere advised that they should not consume the water due to the\ncontamination.\n\n2. The defendant KERRY P. STEARNS has not yet filed an answer to the complaint The\nplaintiff suggests that the answer not be filed until after the plaintiffs motion to amend\nthe complaint is heard After a hearing on the motion, provided such is allowed, the\nplaintiff Will serve the second amended complaint on all parties after which time the\ndefendant KERRY P. STEARNS Would be permitted to answer Within the time frames\ndesignated by the rule.\n\n3. The plaintiff Would like to discuss voluntarily dismissing the claim against Pond Pasture,\nInc. As reason therefore, although the l)efendant Laurie C. Nikitul< is listed as an officer\nof the corporation, it appears that Pond Pasture, Inc. has no affiliation With Pond Pasture\nReal Estate.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 18 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 4 of 5\n\n. The plaintiffs would like to discuss proceeding with a initial phase of discovery and\ninitial disclosures required under Fed R. Civ. P. 26(A)(2) to determine whether at that\ntime it is appropriate to amend the complaint to add a defendant Alan Koivisto, who is\napparently the principal of Pond Pasture Real Estate, all though there is no d/h/a\ncertificate on record with the Town of Otis, and there is no record that Alan Koivisto is\nan officer of an Massachusetts Corporation listed with the Secretary of the\nCommonwealth. Upon information and belief, based on statements from the Town of\nGranville Town Clerk, it appears that Alan Koivisto is doing business as Pond Pasture\nReal Estate.\n\n. The plaintiff s would like to discuss LAURIE C. NlKlTUK\u2019S affirmative defenses 3, 7,\n8. in particular, the defendant LAU`RIE C. NIKITUK had filed a motion to dismiss\npursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. l2 (l). Tlie motion was denied by the court. Pursuant to\nrulel2(h)(l)(a), the defendant LAURIE Ci NIKITUK has waived those aforementioned\ndefenses by omitting the same from the initial Rule l2 Motion. Plaintiff would like to\ndiscuss whether a Rule l2(f) Motion to strike is necessary, or if the Defendant agrees to\nwaive the same in the answer.\n\nSETTLEMENT The plaintiff would like to discuss any possibility of settlement The\nhouse located at l495 Reservoir Road is currently being foreclosed upon by the\nPlaintiff\u2019s mortgagee That mortgagee has halted proceedings as a result of this action\nand appears arniable to some kind of settlement5 including reduction in the amount owed.\nl`he plaintiff would like to mitigate their damages, however do not have the financial\nability to do so. The plaintiffs considers as part of the damage the continuing interest\nthat is in arrears with the mortgageel The plaintiff is open to suggestions from other\ndefendants as to possible solutions to the issue of damages, at least to mitigate the same.\n\n. SETTLEME-NT: The plaintiff has made an offer of settlement to the KERRY P.\nSTEARNS on l\\/lay l2, 2005 to release Mr. Steams from the suit. No further discussions\nhave been held regarding settlement, however the plaintiffs offer to settle remains open\nuntil revoked\n\n. SETTLEMENT: The plaintiff has not made an offer of settlement to the defendant\nLAURIE NIKITUK as counsel has denied any liability on her behalf and otherwise has\ndetermine that no offer to settle the case will be forthcoming from the defendant LAURIE\nNIKITUK.\n\nSETTLEMENT: Defendant Steanis is interested in purchasing back the real estate\nStearns has made a partial offer of settlement by offering Plaintiffs\u2019 lender, Wells Fargo,\nan amount for the compromise and release of the Plaintiffs\u2019 mortgage loan, without\nrecourse against Plaintiffs, in exchange for a deed in lieu of foreclosure to Defendant\nStearns.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 18 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 5 of 5\n\nDated:\n\nlilly l2: 2005\n\nTHE PLAINTIFFS\nRicky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore\nBy their attorney,\n\n/s/Bradford B. l\\/loir\n\n \n\nBradford B. Moir, Esquire\nMOlR & ROSS\n\n45 Broad Street, Suite #2\nWestfield, l\\/IA 01085\nTel. (413) 568\u00bb1957\n\nFax. (4l3) 562-4691\nBBO# 350600\n\nTHE DEFENDANT\nKerry P. Stearns\n\n/s/ Peter J. Brewer\n\nPeter J. Brewer, Esq.\n\n2 Mahaiwe Street\n\nPost Oftice Box l059\n\nGreat Barrington, MA 0l0230\nTel. (4l3)-528-6290\n\nFax` (413)-528-6283\n\nBBO# 545604\n\nTHE DEFENDANT\nLaurie C. Nikituk\n\n(will file under separate cover)\n\n \n\nRichard l. O\u2019Brien, Esq_uire\n75 North Street, Suite 310\nPi_ttsfield, l\\/lA 0l20l\n(413)~ 499-5656\n\nBBO# 552285\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:37:32-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501821259","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Joint submission","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.770060-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:25.006248-08:00","date_filed":"2005-07-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-07-15.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Ricky L. Moore.(Moir, Bradford)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299446/","id":7299446,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509149/","id":5509149,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/17/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.762707-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.997439-08:00","sha1":"be167c3af6d7748255dd5d89cc178b5eea3942c4","page_count":1,"file_size":22044,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.17.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.17.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 17 Filed 07/15/2005 Page1 of1\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DIsTaiCT OF MAss/\\Ci\u00bb!uss'r'rs\n\nWESTERN Df\\/ESION Docket No. 05-30010~MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE\n\nCertiiication by Plaintiff\nPlaintiffs\n\nV.\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C. NIKITUK\nand POND PASTURE REAL ESTATE, lnc.\n\nDefendants\n\n \n\n \n\nWe hereby certify, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. , Loca} Rule 16.1 (d)(3) that on July 12, 2005 We\nmet and conferred:\n\na, With a view to establishing a budget for the costs of conducting the full course and\nvarious alternative courses of litigation; and\n\nb. to consider the resolution of the litigation through the use of alternative dispute\nresolution programs such as those outlined in Local Rule 16.4.\n\n/s/ Bradford B. Moir\nDated: July 12, 2005\n\n \n\nBradford B. Moir\nAttomey for the Plaintiff\n\n/S/ Ricky L. Moore\n\n \n\nRicl<y L. Moore\n\n/S/ Kathryn M. Moore\n\n \n\nKathryn M. Moore\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:39-07:00","document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950651152","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Certification pursuant to Local Rule 16.1","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.756413-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.987382-08:00","date_filed":"2005-07-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-07-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Ricky L. Moore.(Moir, Bradford)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299445/","id":7299445,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509148/","id":5509148,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/16/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.750635-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.978232-08:00","sha1":"177fdfb98c527a0463b1d042fc21199b3a87ebdb","page_count":2,"file_size":34054,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.16.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.16.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 16 Filed 06/22/2005 Paget of 2\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT\nDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSET']`S\nWESTERN DIVISION\n\n \n\nRICKY L. l\\/IOORE and KATHRYN\nM. MOORE,\nPlaintifi\u00b0s\n\nv. Civil Action No. OS-SOOlO-MAP\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURlE C.\n\nNIKITUK and POND PASTURE, lNC.,\nDefendants\n\n \n\nMOTI()N TO CONTINUE SCHEI)ULING CONFERENCE\n\nNow comes Richard J. O\u2019Brien, as attorney for the Defendant, Laurie C. Nikitul<, and\nrespectfully requests that the Court continue and/or reschedule the Scheduling Conference\npresently scheduled for .lune 30, 2005. In support of this l\\/[otion, the Defendant, Laurie\nNikituk\u2019s counsel states as follows:\n\nl. He is presently scheduled to be With his family on vacation in Europe, departing\nJune 29, 2005.\n\n2. After consulting With the Court, Attorney O\u2019Brien was advised to contact all\ncounsel in the case and obtain alternate days.\n\nb.)\n\nUpon consulting other counsel in this case, july 25th or 26\"\u2018 are available, mutually\nconvenient days for all counsel.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Defendant, Laurie C. Nikituk\u2019s counsel_, respectfully requests that this\nC ourt continue and/or reschedule the Scheduling Cont`erence in this matter to .Iuly 25 or 26.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 16 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 2 of 2\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nLAURIE C. NIKITUK,\nant\n\nBy: `\nHer Altorney /\nRichard J. O\"Brien, Esquire\n75 North Street, Suite 310\nPittsfield, MA 01201\n(413) 499-5656\nDated: June 20. 2005 BBO #552285\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nl, Richard J. O\u2019Brien, hereby certify that on this 20Ih day of.lune, 2005, l caused a copy of\nthe foregoing Motion to be forwarded to Bradford B. l\\/[oir, Esquire, Moir & Ross, 45 Broad\nStreet, Suite 2, Westfleld, Massachusetts 01085 and Peter J. Brewer, Esquire` 32 Mahaiwe Street,\nGreat Barrington, MA 01230.\n\n \n\nRiEHa;j J. o\u2019B ' n, inquire\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:42-07:00","document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950608882","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion to Continue","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.745003-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.961738-08:00","date_filed":"2005-06-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-06-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION to Continue scheduling conference to 7/25/05 or 7/26/05 by Laurie C. Nikituk.(Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299444/","id":7299444,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509147/","id":5509147,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/15/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.737625-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.948403-08:00","sha1":"6346af54ab62913788870d9d3087058a46ce7bdf","page_count":2,"file_size":10974,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.15.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.15.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP        Document 15         Filed 05/25/2005   Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\nRICKY L. MOORE, et al.,            )\n                      Plaintiff(s) )\n                                   )\n           v.                      )             Civil Action No. 05-30010-MAP\n                                   )\nKERRY P. STEARNS, et al.,          )\n                      Defendant(s))\n\n\n                       NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE\n\n       An initial scheduling conference will be held on June 30, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.\nbefore Kenneth P. Neiman, U.S.M.J. at the U.S. District Court, Fifth Floor, 1550 Main\nStreet, Springfield, Massachusetts, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and Local\nRule 16.1. The Court considers attendance of the senior lawyers ultimately responsible\nfor the case and compliance with Sections (B), (C), and (D) of Local Rule 16.1 to be of\nthe utmost importance. Counsel may be given a continuance only if actually engaged\non trial. Failure to comply with this notice and with Sections (B), (C), and (D) of Local\nRule 16.1 may result in sanctions under Local Rule 1.3. Counsel for the plaintiff is\nresponsible for ensuring that all parties and/or their attorneys, who have not filed an\nanswer or appearance with the court, are notified of the scheduling conference date.\n\n                                                         KENNETH P. NEIMAN,\n                                                         U.S. Magistrate Judge\n\nMay 25, 2005                                     By:      /s/ Bethaney A. Healy\nDate                                                     Bethaney A. Healy,\n                                                         Deputy Clerk\n                                                         (413) 785-0244\n\n\nThese sections of Local Rule 16.1 provide:\n\n        (B)   Obligation of counsel to confer: Unless otherwise ordered by the Judge,\ncounsel for the parties shall confer no later that twenty-one (21) days prior to the date\nfor the scheduling conference for the purpose of:\n\f     Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP         Document 15       Filed 05/25/2005     Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n       (1)    preparing an agenda of matters to be discussed at the scheduling\n              conference;\n       (2)    preparing a proposed pretrial schedule for the case that includes a\n              plan for discovery;\n       (3)    considering whether they will consent to trial by Magistrate Judge;\n\n(C)     Settlement Proposals: Unless otherwise ordered, the plaintiff shall present\nwritten settlement proposals to all defendants no later than ten (10) days prior to the\ndate for the scheduling conference. Defense counsel shall have conferred with their\nclients on the subject of settlement prior to the scheduling conference and be prepared\nto respond to the proposals at the scheduling conference.\n\n(D)    Joint Statement: Unless otherwise ordered, the parties are required to file, no\nlater than June 23, 2005 , a joint statement containing a proposed pretrial schedule,\nwhich shall include:\n\n       (1)    a joint discovery plan scheduling the time and length for all\n              discovery events, that shall:\n              (a) confirm the obligation to limit discovery set forth in Fed. R. Civ.\n              P. 26(b) and\n              (b) consider the desirability of conducting phased discovery in\n              which the first phase is limited to developing information needed for\n              a realistic assessment of the case and, if the case does not\n              terminate, the second phase is directed at information needed to\n              prepare for trial; and\n       (2)    a proposed schedule for the filing of motions, and\n       (3)    certifications signed by counsel and by an authorized\n              representative of each party affirming that each party and that\n              party's counsel have conferred:\n              (a) with a view of establishing a budget for the costs of conducting\n              the full course, and various alternative courses, of the litigation; and\n              (b) to consider the resolution of the litigation through the use of\n              alternative dispute resolution programs such as those outlined in\n              Local Rule 16.4.\n\n       To the extent that all parties are able to reach agreement on a proposed pretrial\nschedule, they shall so indicate. To the extent that the parties differ on what the pretrial\nschedule should be, they shall set forth separately the items on which they differ and\nindicate the nature of that difference. The purpose of the parties' proposed pretrial\nschedule or schedules shall be to advise the judge of the parties' proposed agenda for\nthe scheduling conference, and their proposed pretrial schedule or schedules, shall be\nconsidered by the judge as advisory only.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:35:32-07:00","document_number":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501751920","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Scheduling Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.730669-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.937734-08:00","date_filed":"2005-05-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-05-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Scheduling Conference ISSUED, cc:cl. Scheduling Conference set for 6/30/2005 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman; joint statement and LR 16.1 certifications due by 6/23/05. (Healy, Bethaney)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299443/","id":7299443,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509146/","id":5509146,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/14/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.723270-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.908557-08:00","sha1":"16eb54ebd5ceb22a7c5024c90096dbb054dd1ad1","page_count":7,"file_size":180093,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.14.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.14.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 14 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 1 01\u2018,7_l _`_:. ..\n\n \n\nUNlTED STATES DISTRICT CoURT .. _ \u2018 F? ,:\nDISTRICT oF MASSACHUSETTS\nWESTERN nlesloN\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN\nM. MOORE,\nPlaintiffs\n\nv. ,_ Civil Action No. 05-300lO-MAP\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C.\nNIKlTUK and POND PASTURE, INC.,\nDefendants\n\n \n\nDEFENDANT\u2019S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT\n\nNow comes the Defendant, Laurie C. Nikituk (\u201cDefendant\u201d), and pursuant to Mass. R. Civ.\nPro. 8, responds as follows to the Plaintift`s, Rickie L. l\\/loore and Katherine M. Moore\u2019s, Complaint:\n\nPARTIES\n\nl. The Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph l of the PlaintifF S Complaint, and\ncalls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same.\n\n2. Admitted.\n3. Admitted.\n\n4. The Defendant States that she is Without Sut`ticient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Plaintiff\"s Cornplaint, and\ncalls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same.\n\nMS_M)__N\n5. The Defendant denies that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28\n\nUSC \u00a7 1332, in that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs,\ndoes not exceed $75,000.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 14 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 2 of 7\n\nlO.\n\nll.\n\nl2.\n\nINTRODUCTION\nAdmitted.\nThe Defendant admits that the disclosure was signed by the seller. The Defendant\ndenies that said disclosure served as \u201can express representation regarding the\ncondition of the property\u201d.\nAdrnitted.\nAdmitted.\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph lO, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph l l, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same,\n\nAdmitted.\n\nCOUNT I\n\nfFRAUD AND DECEIT - RICKIE L. MOORE V. KERRY P. S'I`EARNS}\n\n13.\n\n14.\n\n15.\n\n16.\n\nl7.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 13, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph l4, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 15, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 16, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 17, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 14 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 3 of 7\n\n18.\n\nl9.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 18, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 19, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\n\nCOUNT II\n\nfMUTUAL MISTAKE - RICKIE L. MOORE V. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\n20.\n\nZl.\n\n22.\n\n23.\n\n24.\n\n25.\n\n26.\n\n27.\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates her answers to paragraphs l -19 as if originally set\nforth herein.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 21_, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 22, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 23, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 24, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the aliegations contained in paragraph 25, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nSEIII]\u20ac.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 26, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nM!_\nLMISPRESENTATION v. KERRY P. sTEARNS)\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates her answers to paragraphs l -26 as if ori ginally set\nforth herein.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 14 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 4 of 7\n\n28.\n\n29.\n\n30,\n\n31.\n\n32.\n\n33.\n\n34.\n\n35.\n\n36.\n\n37.\n\n38.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 28, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 29, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 30, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 31. and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 32, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 33, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 34, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 35, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 36, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nSam\u20ac.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 37, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 38, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 14 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 5 of 7\n\n40.\n\n41.\n\n42.\n\n43.\n\n441\n\n45.\n\n46.\n\n47.\n\n48.\n\n49.\n\n50.\n\nSl.\n\n52.\n\nCOUNT IV\n(MISREPRESENTATION - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE -\nFRAUD _ DECEIT V. KERRY P. STEARNS)\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates her answers to paragraphs l-3 8 as if originally set\nforth herein.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 40. and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 4l , and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 42, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 43_, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove\nsame.\nCOUNT V\nMISREPRESENTATION V. LAURIE C. NIKITUK\nAND POND PASTURE. INC.)\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates her answers to paragraphs l- 43 as if originally\nset forth herein.\n\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\n\nDenied.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 14 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 6 of 7\n\n53.\n\nDenied.\n\nCOUNT VI\n\n[UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICE CH. 93A CONSUMER PROTECTION\n\n54.\n\n55.\n\n56.\n\n57.\n\n58.\n\n59.\n\n60.\n\n61.\n\n62.\n\n63.\n\nVIOLATI()N V. LAURIE C. NIKITUK)\n\nThe Defendant repeats and restates her answers to paragraphs 1\u00bb53 as if originally\nset forth herein.\n\nThe Defendant states that she is without sufficient information to either admit or\ndeny the allegations contained in paragraph 5 5, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to\nprove same.\nT he Defendant states that the allegation contained in paragraph 56 does not make\nsense, and accordingly she is unable to respond thereto. If the Defendant is\nobligated to respond to paragraph 56, she denies said allegations\nDenied.\nDenied.\nDenied.\nThe Defendant admits that she received correspondence dated l\\/Iarch l8, 2004.\nThe Defendant denies that said correspondence \u201creasonably describ[ed] the unfair\nor deceptive practice relied upon and the injuries suffered\u201d.\nAdmitted.\nDenied\nDenied.\n\nAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES\n\nThe Plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be\ngranted, and accordingly should be dismissed\n\nThe Plaintiffs have failed to bring their claim within the time allowed by law, and\naccordingly their claim should be dismissed\n\nThe amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed\n$75,000. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint should be dismissed\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 14 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 7 of 7\n\n4. The Plaintiffs\u2019 claim under their so-called Ch. 93A Demand Letter are not claims\nactionable under G.L. Ch. 93A, and accordingly such claim should be dismissed\n\n5. The Plaintiffs\u2019 own negligence contributed to their damages, if any, and recovery\nin this action should be barred or diminished in accordance with G.L.c. 231 \u00a785.\n\n6. The injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff\u2019 s were caused by the acts or acts\nof persons for whose conduct the Defendant is not responsible\n\n7. Process in this action is insufficient; wherefore this action should be dismissed\n8. Service of process in this action was insufficient; wherefore this action should be\ndismissed\n\nWHEREFORE, the Defendant, Laurie C. Nikituk, requests that the Plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint\nbe dismissed, and that she be awarded her costs, and attorney\u2019s fees for defending against that\naction.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nLAURlE C. NlKlTUK,\nDefendant\n\nBy her ney\n\n \n\n2\nRichard J. O/\u2019,Bf\u00a7en, Esquire\n75 North Street, Suite 310\nPittsfield, MA 01201\n(413) 499~5656\nBBO #: 552285\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\nI, Richard J. O\u2019Brien, hereby certify that on this _\u00a2;(day of May, 2005, I caused a copy of the\n\nforegoing Answer to be forwarded to Bradford B. Moir, Esquire, Moir & Ross, 45 Broad Street,\nSuite 2, Westfield, Massachusetts 01085 and Peter J. Brewer, Esquire, 32 Mahaiwe Street, Great\n\nBarrington, MA 0]230.\nRichard . O\u2019B`iien, Esquire\n\n \n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:35:58-07:00","document_number":"14","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950551889","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.716040-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.807547-08:00","date_filed":"2005-05-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":14,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-05-24.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Dft&#039;s ANSWER to first Amended Complaint by Laurie C. Nikituk.(Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299442/","id":7299442,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509145/","id":5509145,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/13/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.708616-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.790983-08:00","sha1":"26fa59f0746ac8851b1e9373461cf7d47283cd7a","page_count":1,"file_size":20958,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.13.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.13.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 13 Filed 05/24/2005 Page1 oft\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\nWESTERN DIVISION\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN\nM. MOORE,\nPlaintiffs\n\nv. _ Civil Action No. 05-3001()-MAP\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C.\n\nNIKITUK and POND PASTURE, INC.,\nDefendants\n\n \n\nNOTICE OF APPEARANCE\n\nPlease enter my appearance as counsel for the Def`endant, Laurie C . Nikituk, in the above-\ncaptioned matter.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nLAURIE C. NIKI\"[`UK,\nDefendant\n\nBy:`\"/;?\\\\_%\n\nHer Aitorney `\nRichard J. O'Brien, Esquire\n75 North Street, Suite 310\nPittsf`leld, MA 012()1\n(413) 499-5656\n\nDared; May \u00a7 2005 BBo #552285\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI, Richard J. O\u2019Brien, hereby certify that on this Q day ofMay, 2005, l caused a copy of the\nforegoing Answer to be forwarded to Bradford B. Moir, Esquire, Moir & Ross, 45 Broad Street,\nSuite 2_, Westfleld, Massachusetts 01085 and Peter J. Brewer, Esquire, 32 Mahaiwe Street, Great\nBarrington, MA 0123 O.\n\n \n\nRichz\u00a7rd J. O\u2019Brien, Esquire\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:37:36-07:00","document_number":"13","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950551807","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.702250-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.752805-08:00","date_filed":"2005-05-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":13,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-05-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Richard J. O&#039;Brien on behalf of Laurie C. Nikituk (Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299441/","id":7299441,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509144/","id":5509144,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/12/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.696741-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.736010-08:00","sha1":"eddc0cf48c43b84864f918776ddb5f436f2164d1","page_count":1,"file_size":27322,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.12.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.12.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"                 Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP                       Document 12     Filed 05/20/2005          Page 1 of 1\n                                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                                  DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\n\n                                                        ORDER OF REFERENCE\n\n\n                                                                                 Check if previously referred\n\n             RICKY MOORE\n                                                                                      05-30010\n                   V.                                                   CA/CR No.\n\n         KERRY P. STEARNS                                                        Criminal Category\n\n\n\nIn accordance with 28 U.S.C. \u00a7636 and the Rules for United States Magistrates in the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Massachusetts, the above-entitled case is referred to Magistrate Judge NEIMAN              for the following\nproceedings:\n\n(A)                Referred for full pretrial case management, including all dispositive motions.\n\n(B)      \u2714         Referred for full pretrial case management, not including dispositive motions:\n\n(C)                Referred for discovery purposes only.\n\n(D)                Referred for Report and Recommendation on:\n\n                   ( ) Motion(s) for injunctive relief\n                   ( ) Motion(s) for judgment on the pleadings\n                   ( ) Motion(s) for summary judgment\n                   ( ) Motion(s) to permit maintenance of a class action\n                   ( ) Motion(s) to suppress evidence\n                   ( ) Motion(s) to dismiss\n                   ( ) Post Conviction Proceedings 1\n                    See Documents Numbered:\n\n(E)                Case referred for events only. See Doc. No(s).\n\n(F)                Case referred for settlement.\n\n(G)                Service as a special master for hearing, determination and report, subject to the terms of the special order\n                   filed herewith:\n                   ( ) In accordance with Rule 53, F.R.Civ.P.\n                   ( ) In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(5)\n\n(H)                Special Instructions:      SCHEDULING CONFERENCE\n\n\n\n\nMAY 20, 2005                                                                     /s/Elizabeth A. French\n                                                                        By:\nDate                                                                             Deputy Clerk\n\n(OrRef for pdf.wpd - 05/2003)\n\n\n\n\n                    1    See reverse side of order for instructions\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:37:20-07:00","document_number":"12","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501711437","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.691275-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.714612-08:00","date_filed":"2005-05-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":12,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-05-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Judge Michael A Ponsor : Electronic ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman Referred for: scheduling conference and full case management excluding dispositive motions(French, Elizabeth)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299440/","id":7299440,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509143/","id":5509143,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/11/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.684215-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.702405-08:00","sha1":"2b0fe60e443387d3867751fb196507502bcf81af","page_count":2,"file_size":21771,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.11.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.11.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 11 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 1 012\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n[)lSTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\nWESTERN DIVISION\n\nCivil Action NO. 05-300lO-MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN\nM. MOORE, `\nPlaimiffs ' '\n\nV.\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS. LAURIE C.\nNIKITUK and POND PASTURE. INC.,\nDefendants\n\n \n\nAPPEARANCE\n\nl hereby file my appearance on behalf of Defendant Kerry P. Stearns.\n\n/%/1/\n\nPet . rewer, Esq.\n\n32 ahaiwe Street\n\nPc)st Off`lce Box 1059\n\nGreat Barrington_, MA 0123()\nTelephone 1-413-528-6290\nFax 1-4]3-528-6283\nBBO#545604\n\n.....\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 11 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 2 012\n\nCEIU`IFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI, Peter J. Brewer, hereby certify that on May 16, 2005, I Serveci a copy 01` the\nforegoing document on the parties of record by mailing Sarne, first class rnai1, postage\nprepaid, to:\n\nBradford B. Moir, Esq.\nMoir & Ross\n\n45 Broad Street, Suite Two\nWestr`leld_. MA 01085-5200\n\nRichard J. O`Brien. ESq.\n75 North Street. Suite 310\nPittst`;eld, `MA 01 201\n413-499-5656\n\n%/M/\n\nPeter .I/TJre-'wer\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:35:25-07:00","document_number":"11","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501731720","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.677217-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.681881-08:00","date_filed":"2005-05-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":11,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-05-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Peter J. Brewer on behalf of Kerry P. Stearns (Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299439/","id":7299439,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509142/","id":5509142,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/10/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.669813-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.654084-08:00","sha1":"194bcfa07bc5c3df86279811c560ba698ed146cf","page_count":2,"file_size":30501,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.10.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.10.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 10 Filed 05/09/2005 Paget of 2\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSET'I`S\nWESTERN DIVISION\n\nCivil Action NO_ 05-30010-MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN\nl\\/l. MOORE,\nPlaintit`t`s\n\nV' \u20ac.*')\nKERRY P. STEARNS. l,AURIE C. 7 }.-.:`\n\nNIKITUK and POND PASTURE, lNC.t\nDet`endants\n\n \n\nAFFIDAVIT OF PETER J. BREWER IN\nSUPPORT OF MOTION PRO HAC VICE\n\nl. My name is Peter .l. Brewer. l am making this Affidavit in Support of the Motion\nPr0 Hac Vice.\n\n2. l was admitted to practice in the Cc)urts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts\nin 1985.\n\n3. l was admitted to practice in the Courts ot`the State of New York in 1985.\n\n4. l am a member ot`the bar in good standing in the Commonwealth of\n\nMassachusetts, and the State of New York under inactive status.\n\n5. There are no disciplinary proceedings pending against me as a member of the bar\nin any jurisdiction\n\n6. l am familiar with the Local Rules Ot` the United States District Court for the\n[)istrict of Massachusetts. f\n\ng iff 614\n\nSigned under the pains and penalties of perjury this , 1 day ofA-pri\u00bblY 2005.\n\n \n\n \n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 10 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 2 of 2\n\nCERTIFICATE OF \u00a7ERVICE\n\n\"t/'\ni'\"f('.\u2019_// ,-\nI., Charles J. Ferris, hereby certify that on Api~il-\u2018/ 5 , 2005, l served a copy of\nthe foregoing document on the parties of record by mailing same, first class mail, postage\nprepaid, to:\n\nBradford B` i\\/loir, Esq.\nMoir & Ross\n\n45 Broad Street` Suite TWO\nWestt`ield, l\\/[A Ol 085-5200\n\nRichard .l. ()`Brien, Esq.\n75 North Street, Suite 310\nPittsfield. l\\/IA 01201\n413-499-5656\n\n\"\u2019\"_\"\"-__ ,.\n\nl .\n\n \n\nQrgjs J. Ferris. Attorney\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:35:29-07:00","document_number":"10","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501725717","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Affidavit in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.662480-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.615031-08:00","date_filed":"2005-05-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":10,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-05-09.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"AFFIDAVIT of Peter J. Brewer in Support of Dft&#039;s [9] MOTION to permit Atty. Peter J. Brewer Appear Pro Hac Vice, Filing fee &#036; 50.00, receipt number 305934. filed by Kerry P. Stearns. (Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299438/","id":7299438,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509141/","id":5509141,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/9/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.655138-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.599970-08:00","sha1":"c98892e08a71eb7689c92332819059c3aedc528d","page_count":2,"file_size":26265,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.9.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.9.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 9 Filed 05/09/2005 Paget of 2\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\nWESTERN DIVISION\n\nCivil Action NO. 05-3()()]0-MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KA'I`HRYN\n\n~::;\u00e9\nM. MOORE_ \u00a7\nPlaintii`Fs E:\u2018->\nv- ,\u201c\nKERRY P. s'rEARNS. LAURIE C. ma m \u2018f\u00a2m\u2018 c _\nNIKiTUK and POND PAsTURE, iNC.` RECEIPH 5 3\nDefendants AMOUN\"-` $ 50 \u2018 tro\n\n \n\nBY DPTY cm _\nDATE 5 05 `\n\nMOTION PRO HAC VICE\n\nCharles J. Ferris hereby moves that this Court admit Peter J. Brewer, Esq., Pro\nHac Vice` in order for Attorney Brewer to represent Defendant Kerry P. Stearns.\n\nAn Afi`ldavil of Peter .I. Brewer is filed in support Ofthis motion.\n\nRespectfully Submitted_,\n\nQM\u00a7\u00a2A/~\\\n\nCharles_ erris` Attorney\n500 Main Street\n\nGreat Barrington, MA 0123()\n413-528-8900\n\nBBO #565630\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 9 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 2 of 2\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n/z\u20aca if c\u2019\nlt Charles J. Ferris, hereby certify that on A-pril `J , 2005, I served a copy of\nthe foregoing document on the parties ot` record by mailing same, first class mailq postage\nprepaid._ to:\n\nBradford B. Moir. Esq.\nMoir & Ross\n\n45 Broad Street, Suite Two\nWestf`ield, MA 01085-5200\n\nRichard .l. O`Brien` Esq.\n75 North Street. Suite 310\n\nPittsfield, MA 01201\n413-499-5656\n\n(\\lh/arWerris, Attorney\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:37:40-07:00","document_number":"9","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"09501728466","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.648681-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.563212-08:00","date_filed":"2005-05-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-05-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION to permit Atty. Peter J. Brewer to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Filing fee &#036; 50.00, receipt number 305934. by Kerry P. Stearns. (Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299437/","id":7299437,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509140/","id":5509140,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/8/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.642976-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.549327-08:00","sha1":"2f3528e970867e616f4e0a9fc057b685b5880a3d","page_count":2,"file_size":23879,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.8.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.8.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 8 Filed 05/09/2005 Page1 of 2\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\nWESTERN DIVISION\n\nCivil Action No. 05-30010-MAP\n\n \n\nRlCKY L. MOORE and K/\\THRYN _:i\nM. MooRE_ j '_ _ m\nPlaintil`i`s ,>% ' s ' age\n\nV . -:' i ,:\u2018!\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C.\nNIKITUK and POND PASTURE_ INC..\nDefendants\n\n \n\nLIMITED APPEARANCE\n\nCharles J. Ferris hereby files his Appearance for the limited purpose of moving\nthis Court for admission of` Peter J. Brewer. Esq. Pro Hac Vice, in order for Attorney\n\nBrewer to represent Defendant Kerry P. Stearns.\n\nRespectfuliy Submitted\n\nChar]\\/e\u00a3l Ferris Attomey\n500 Street\nGreat Barrington, MA 01230\n\n413-528-8900\nBBO #565630\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 8 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 2 of 2\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\nr- , ff'\nl, Charles J. Ferris__ hereby certify that on Api:il @`w\u2018/, 2005, I served a copy of\n\nthe foregoing document on the parties of record by mailin@ame, first class mail, postage\n\nprepaid, to:\n\nBradford B. l\\/Ioir` Esq.\nMoir & Ross\n\n45 Broad Street. Suite Two\nWestf`leld, l\\/IA 01085-5200\n\nRichard J. O\u2019Brien, Esq.\n75 North Street. Suite 310\nPittsfield1 MA 01201\n413-499-5656\n\nO/Mvw\\/'\n\nCharles U. `Ferris, Attorney\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:18-07:00","document_number":"8","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950553415","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.637189-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.515064-08:00","date_filed":"2005-05-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":8,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-05-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Limited Appearance by Charles J. Ferris on behalf of Kerry P. Stearns (Lindsay, Maurice)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299436/","id":7299436,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509139/","id":5509139,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/7/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.629655-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.486577-08:00","sha1":"f7a8f60ff734c6a48cfb9098a4e1c2e7cccc6a0c","page_count":7,"file_size":177437,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.7.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.7.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 7 Filed 04/14/2005 Page1 of 7\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFoR THE DIS\"I'RIC'F oF MASS/\\CHUSETTS\n\nWESTERN D[\\/[SION Docket N0.05-30010-MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE\n\nPlaintiffs\nv.\n\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C. NIKITUK\nand POND PASTURE, InC.\n\n \n\n \n\nC: \u00a7\u00a7 ;\n\n\u00a7\u00a7b} UH ca\n\nU}.` _ .\" ` .:.\nDefendants TF\u00a7 \u00a7 `c\u00a7n\n\n\"\". g_j\u2018\u00a7 ,1.. \"_'\n\nCRA *' FW*\n\n'4;\u00a7 -C fn\n\n\u00a7\u00a7le *r_i `._,fj\n\nPLAINTIFFS\u2019\n\n \n\nMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ORQQSITION 9\n\nTo DEFENDANT LAURIE c. NIKITUK'$ MoTIoN To`-j.f_ \u00a7\u00a7MI\u2018\u00a7\u2019$ \":f`\n\n..\\.-.-\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\nDefendant Nikituk has filed a motion to dismiss and\n\nconveniently characterized the plaintiff's mental anguish, pain\n\nand suffering, loss of property and otherwise minimized the\n\nplaintiffs' damages as inconsequential. The plaintiff\u2019s had\n\nrelocated from Michigan to Massachusetts. They found out after\n\nliving in the house the defendant Stearns sold to them, and\n\nNikituk as agent for Stearns brokered, that the water that they\n\nhad been drinking, cooking with, bathing in was contaminated\n\nwith either their cm\u2018 a neighbors feces. The plaintiffs have\n\nsufficiently plead the causes of action which entitle them to\n\ndamages which if successful at trial would entitle them to\n\ndamages in excess of seventy five thousand ($75,000.00} dollars.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 7 Filed 04/14/2005 Page 2 of 7\n\nII. THE COMPLAINT\n\nThe Plaintiffs Ricky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore are\nhusband and wife. They relocated from the state of Michigan to\nthe property they purchased 1495 Reservoir Road in Otis,\nMassachusetts. Kathryn M. Moore learned of the property via a\nlisting on the Internet. She contacted the listing broker,\nLaurie Nikituk, agent for Pond Pasture, Inc. and requested more\ninformation on the listing. A purchase and sale agreement was\nentered into between. Stearns and Ricky' L. Moore on July 22,\n2002. As part of the agreement, Stearns made a representation\nthat there were no known problems with the water. As\nspecifically averred in the plaintiffs' first amended complaint,\nthe plaintiff\u2019s specifically' questioned Laurie Nikituk as to\nwhether the seller had ever had any problems with the drinking\nwater supply, to which Nikituk responded, the water has already\nbeen tested, it passed and it would be a waste of their money to\nperform any further test. (First Amended Complaint HH48,49).\nThis representation was relied upon and no further testing was\ndone.\n\nThe property was conveyed on August 20, 2002. A few months\n\nafter taking possession the plaintiffs started to experience\n\nvarious ailments. For months they were sick with flu like\nsymptoms, but worse (Sinus infections, headaches, diarrhea,\nexcessive sweating, fatigue, body aches, etc). After several\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 7 Filed 04/14/2005 Page 3 of 7\n\nmonths of testing by their physician it could not be determined\nwhat was causing their illness. They were then advised to have\ntheir water tested. The water test revealed excessively high\nconcentrates of Total Coliform, E-Coli, and Nitrate, indicative\nof their water being contaminated by human waste or septic\npollution. Their physician advised them to immediately cease\ndrinking or cooking with the water as did the environmental\nlaboratory who tested the water. It was only after this test\nthat the plaintiffs learned that the defendant Stearns was aware\nof the issues with the drinking' water and failed, to disclose\nsuch.\n\nAfter learning of the contamination and that they had been\ningesting this polluted water, the plaintiff's were traumatized.\nThe Moores spoke with several people in the well service and\ninstallation industry who confirmed their worst fears, that the\ncost to alleviate the problem was substantial and there was no\nguarantees that a new well would fix the problem as the source\nof the contamination was unknown. The Moores simply did not\nhave the means necessary to fix the problem. They had committed\nall of their savings to purchasing the property and the equity\nin the property was tapped out. The plaintiffs could not sell\nthe property because it would not pass Title V in its present\ncondition unless they engaged in tactics to cover up the problem\n\n(bleach the well repeatedly' and test the water after). The\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 7 Filed 04/14/2005 Page 4 of 7\n\nMoores were not about to commit a fraud and certainly did not\nwant to put anyone through what they had been through and as\nsuch have abandoned the property and left the state\nIII. DISCUSSION\nA.STANDARD OF REVIEW\n\nUnder \u00a7 1332(a), federal diversity jurisdiction exists only\nif \"the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of\n$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.\" See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\n1332(a); Bull HN Information Sys. v. Hutson, 229 F.3d 321, 328\n(lst Cir.2000), Chapman v. Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire\nSlip Copy, 2005 WL 827088, (D.N.H.,2005, J. Barbadoro).\nAccording to the United States Supreme Court, however, \"[i]t\nmust appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for\nless than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal\u201c on the\nbasis that the amount in controversy requirement has not been\nmet. Id, St. Paul Mercury Indemn. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S.\n283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938}; See Spielman v.\n\nGenzyme Corp., 251 F.Bd l, 5 (lst Cir.2001}.\n\nB.THE COMPLAINT CLEARLY MEETS THAT AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY\nREQUIREMENT.\n\nThe complaint against the defendant consists of several\n\nalternative remedies against the three defendants. One of the\n\nremedies sought by the plaintiffs is reimbursement for the\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 7\n\nFiled 04/14/2005 Page 5 Of 7\n\nentire purchase price of the real estate, plus the late\n\npenalties, interest and cost the lender has assessed against the\nplaintiffs, which at this point in time is in excess of\n$98,658.76. As an alternative remedy, the plaintiff has sought\ndamages equal to the cost to replace the existing septic system,\nat a cost unknown and the cost to sink a new wellr which was\nestimated to be $8,270.36 in 2003. The problem with this remedy\nis that the well installers are unwilling to guarantee (l) that\nthey will be able to find water due to the substantial amount of\nledge located on the property and limited area to drill due to\nthe proximity of the septic system or {2) that a new well will\nalleviate the current contamination issues.\n\nIn addition, each plaintiff is seeking compensation for\nphysical pain. and suffering and_ mental anguish. that resulteo\nfrom ingesting and bathing in water that was contaminated with\nhuman waste for over a year. The physical ailments tha;\nresulted admittedly did not result in substantial medical cost.\nThe plaintiffs did however suffer considerably, both physically\nand psychologically and continue to suffer. The defendart\nNikituk if found liable for the misrepresentation may be also be\nheld accountable pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer\nProtection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws 93A. If responsible, Nikitik\nwould. be liable to the plaintiffs for their actual damages,\n\ndoubled_ or trebled, costs and attorney's fees. The damages,\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 7\n\nFiled 04/14/2005 Page 6 Of 7\n\nincluding the punitive damages prOVid\u20acd fOr by the Statute and\nattorney's fees all contribute to the requisite jurisdi\u20acti\u00aenal\namount. See Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. an\u20ac\u00a7, 290 U-S-\n199, 202, 54 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed. 267 (1933) (holding that\nattorney's fees shall be included. as part of the amount in\ncontroversy calculation). Given. the tortious nature of the\ndefendants conduct and the subsequent trauma it has caused the\nplaintiffs, it is difficult to determine the plaintiffs damages.\nHowever, given. the degree of physical pain and. suffering and\nsevere emotional trauma, damages, including punitive damages and\nattorney\u2019s fee's will be substantial and surpass the $75,000.0\u20ac\nrequirement.\n\nThe defendant has cited Volvo North America v. Mens\nInternational Pro Tennis Council, 678 F. Supp. 1035 (DCNY 1987)\nas standing for the proposition that failure to plead a specific\namount of damages is fatal to the plaintiffs' complaint.\nAlthough that assertion may hold true in a breach of contra:t\naction where damages are readily ascertainable, it would be much\nmore difficult for a plaintiff to assert a specific damage\namount in a claim tortious conduct. Rather the requirement is\nthat the plaintiff must plead in good faith.\n\n\"Ordinarily the plaintiff's claim with respect to the\nvalue of the property taken from him. or the amount of\ndamages incurred by him, through the defendants 'wron\u00a7ful\n\nact measures, for jurisdictional purposes, the value of the\nmatter in controversy * * *, unless, upon inspection of tne\n\n` f 7\nCase 3'05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 7 Fl|ed 04/14/2005 Page 7 o\n\nplaintiff's declaration, it appears that, as a nmtter of\nlamr it is not possible for the plaintiff to recover the\njurisdictional amount * * *.\" Smithers v. Smith, 27 S.Ct.\n297, 299, 204 U.S. 632, 642, 51 L.Ed. 656 (1907).\n\nIV. CONCLUSION\n_______n_\nFor the foregoing reasons the Defendant prays this Honorable\n\nCourt denies the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\n\nTHE PLAINTIFFS\nRicky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore\nBy their attorney,\n\nDated: April 14, 2005 (/\"\\)///:2 .\n\nBradfo{d B. Moir, Esquire L\nMOIR & ROSS\n\n45 Broad Street, Suite #2\nWestfield, MA 01085\n\nTel. (413) 568-1957\n\nFax. (413) 562~4691\n\nBBO# 350600\n\n \n\n \n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:37:00-07:00","document_number":"7","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950499472","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum of Law","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.622023-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.466376-08:00","date_filed":"2005-04-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":7,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-04-14.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Pltfs&#039; MEMORANDUM OF LAW in support of their [6] Opposition to Deft. Laurie C. Nikituk&#039;s Motion to dismiss by Ricky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore filed. (Finn, Mary)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/7299435/","id":7299435,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4281027/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/5509138/","id":5509138,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4281027/6/moore-v-stearns/","date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.614369-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.435619-08:00","sha1":"56e9b8149bf1748f573fb920fd8352fc2accebcb","page_count":2,"file_size":39791,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.6.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.95988/gov.uscourts.mad.95988.6.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 6 Filed 04/14/2005 Page1 of 2\n\nLHUTEDSTATESDBTRK:FCOURT\nFoR THE DISTRlcT oF M/\\SSACHUSETTS\n\nWESTERN Di\\/ISICN Docket N0.05-30010-MAP\n\n \n\nRICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE\n\nPLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION\nPlaintiff$ TO DEFENDANT\nLAURIE c. NIKITUK's\n\nMOTION TO DISMI\u00a7S\nKERRY P. STEARNS, LAURIE C. NIKITUK eq 11\n\nand POND PASTURE, Inc.\n\nV.\n\n<._- C\"`\n\nDefendants\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\ni'-': ll 'lj 1\"?-'\u00bb.\nNOW COME THE PLAINTIFFS and hereby oppose Laurie (Ih\u00a7Nikatuk\u00a7s\n\nmotion to dismiss their complaint. ':\n\nAS REASON THEREFORE, the plaintiffs have sufficiently plead\ndamages to surpass the amount in controversy requirement of 28\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 1332. Please see plaintiffs\u2019 memorandum in support of\n\ntheir opposition, attached hereto.\n\nWHEREFORE, the plaintiffs Ricky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore\n\nrequest that the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk\u2019s motion be denied.\n\nREQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT\nThe plaintiffs believe that oral argument may assist the\ncourt and wish to be heard. The plaintiffs hereby request that\n\nthe court set down for hearing a time and place to be heard.\n\nCase 3:05-cv-30010-|\\/|AP Document 6 Filed 04/14/2005 Page 2 of 2\n\nTHE PLAINTIFFS\nRicky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore\nBy their attorney,\n\nDated: April 14, 2005/M /):`\n\nBrad ord B Moir, Esquir\u00a5\nMOI! & ROSS\n\n45 Broad Street, Suite #2\nWestfield, MA 01085\n\nTel. (413) 568-1957\n\nFax. (413) 562-4691\n\nBBO# 350600\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI, Bradford B. Moir, do certify that I have served on this 14th\nday of April 14, 2005 a copy of the foregoing document by\ndelivering via United States First Class Mail to Defendant\nLaurie Nikituk's Attorney, Richard J. O\u2019Brien, 75 North Street,\nSuite 310, Pittsfield, MA, 01201 and Defendant Kerry P. Stearns\u2019\nAttorney, Peter J. Brewer, 32 Mahaiwe Street, PO Box 1059, Great\nBarrington, Massachusetts 01230\n\nBr\u00e9dfofd B. Moir\n\n \n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-08-09T18:36:33-07:00","document_number":"6","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0950501018","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-21T00:13:04.606813-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-14T22:31:24.398281-08:00","date_filed":"2005-04-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":6,"recap_sequence_number":"2005-04-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Pltfs&#039; Opposition to Deft. Laurie C. Nikituk&#039;s [4] MOTION to Dismiss by Ricky L. Moore, Kathryn M. Moore filed. (Finn, Mary)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=4281027&page_size=40"}