Last week, in the case of Sullivan v. Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled employees in the courthouse may sue the Chief Justice for Administration and Management over appropriate remediation of environmental concerns within the building. The SJC determined that plaintiffs had standing and that the claims were not barred by sovereign immunity. However, the court denied claims based on environmental law violations, and declined to exercise its powers of general superintendence over the court at this time. A few highlights:
1. Standing. “The plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that they are in danger of suffering serious harm as a direct result of the CJAM's purported breach of his statutory and common-law obligations. Moreover, although the plaintiffs do not allege that they have suffered actual harm, they are "not required to wait until [they are] injured before [they] can apply to a court of equity for relief," so long as the danger is reasonably imminent.”
2. Sovereign Immunity. “claims based on negligent maintenance of public property, including those against the CJAM, are not barred by sovereign immunity pursuant to G. L. c. 258, § 10 (j) (3).”
3. Public nuisance. “Because the plaintiffs have not alleged a special injury of a direct and substantial character other than that which the general public shares, a public nuisance action can only be brought by the Attorney General. Accordingly, count 3 of the plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.”
4. Environmental law violations. “In the absence of any legal authority pursuant to which the plaintiffs can bring an action to enforce the environmental laws on which they rely, we conclude that count 5 of the plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.”
5. Exercise of general superintendence. “The exercise of this court's general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not appropriate at this juncture. Accordingly, count 6 of the plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.”
