Document 86 - Larson v. Perry (Dorland) ("Bad Art Friend")
Document 86 - Larson v. Perry (Dorland) ("Bad Art Friend")
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SONYA LARSON
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM
(1) IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BY
COHEN BUSINESS LAW GROUP AND JEFFREY A. COHEN, ESQ., AND
(2) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Sonya Larson (“Larson”), submits this Memorandum for two reasons:
(1) In opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings submitted by Cohen
Business Law Group, PC and Jeffrey A. Cohen, Esq. (hereinafter, the “Cohen Defendants”); and
(2) In support of Larson’s Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint in order to
comport with this Court’s Memorandum and Order of March 27, 2020 (Doc. 59) and to clarify
certain allegations regarding the impact that the Cohen Defendants had on trade and
commerce. A copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached to Larson’s Motion
as “Exhibit A.”
I. Introduction
This is a lawsuit about the Plaintiff, Sonya Larson’s, well-received short story
entitled, The Kindest (the “Story,” “Short Story,” or “The Kindest”), and a disgruntled woman
1
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 20
who accuses Larson of plagiarism and copyright infringement. In 2015, Defendant, Dawn
Dorland Perry (“Dorland”), made a kidney donation, and wrote a letter to the recipient of her
kidney donation (the “Dorland Letter”). (Am. Compl. ¶10). She then posted the letter on a
private Facebook group containing approximately 250-300 members. (Am. Compl. ¶11). Larson
was a member of the Facebook group, and saw the original post containing the Dorland Letter.
Larson began writing the Story in 2015, which tells the story of a Chinese woman receiving a
kidney donation from a white woman. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18-19). Part of the Story features a letter
written to the central character. The letter appears halfway through the story, and acts as a
literary device to introduce the two women to one another, and establish the foundation for a
The Kindest was published several times before this Action was filed. These publications
include an audio book published by Audible, Inc. (www.Audible.com) (“Audible”) (Am. Compl.
¶¶ 27-8), and in print and online versions published by American Short Fiction (“ASF”) (Am.
Compl. ¶31). In 2018, the Story won a prestigious competition conducted by the Boston Book
Festival (the “BBF”), a Massachusetts based writer’s organization that was established to
promote literature, celebrate authors and highlight the importance of the literary arts. (See, BBF
Dorland is accusing Larson of copying Dorland’s Facebook letter and using parts of the
letter in Larson’s Short Story. Larson denies that she copied the letter and is seeking damages
from both Dorland and the Cohen Defendants for various harms including interfering with
several advantageous business relationships and defamation, as well as Chapter 93A violations
More detailed facts and allegations have been thoroughly briefed by the parties and
recounted by this court. See, generally, Doc. #59, Doc. 52 (Am. Compl.) and Larson’s Motion
2
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 20
The basis for Larson’s present Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint stems from
this Court’s Memorandum and Order of March 27, 2020 (Doc. 59), and the Cohen Defendants
Larson originally filed her Amended Complaint on July 31, 2019 (Doc. 52). All
defendants including Dorland and the Cohen Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss this Action
[(Doc. 25 (Dorland) and Doc. 11 (Cohen)]. On March 27, 2020, Dorland’s Motion was allowed
in part and denied in part. The Cohen Defendants’ motion was denied in its entirety. A Motion
for Reconsideration by the Cohen Defendants was denied on April 13, 2020. (Doc. Entry
67). Dorland answered the Second Amended Complaint and filed Counterclaims against Larson
on April 24, 2020. (Doc. 75). On May 15, 2020, Larson filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Counterclaims for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. (Motion, Doc. 77;
Memo, Doc. 78). The Court has taken Larson’s pending Motion under advisement.
As a result of numerous Motions and requests for extensions of time, the Parties are still
in very early stages of litigation. So far, Larson is the only Party who has conducted any
discovery in this action other than initial disclosures. Larson served a request for documents on
Dorland on May 7, 2020. Dorland produced some documents on June 19, 2020, and promised to
provide additional documents over two weeks ago but as of the date of this Memorandum has not
Larson also served a set of document requests and interrogatories on the Cohen
Defendants on June 26, 2020. The Cohen Defendants have about two weeks left to respond to
On July 1, 2020, the Cohen Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Motion is based in part, on the ruling made by this Court in its Memorandum and Order of
March 27, 2020 (Doc. 59), with respect to Larson’s claim for damages for the intentional
interference with her contractual relations. Larson believes that she can overcome the court’s
adverse ruling if she is given leave to amend her complaint. Larson’s claims against Dorland
3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 20
and the Cohen Defendants for intentional interference with contract would be substituted with
Larson also believes she can overcome the Cohen Defendants’ present Motion relative to
her Chapter 93A claims on the merits. However she is also seeking leave to amend her complaint
to clarify and elaborate on the impact that the Cohen Defendants had on trade and commerce.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend a complaint should “freely” be
given “when justice so requires.” In the oft cited case of Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182–83
(1962), the Supreme Court provides that “this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman instructs that if
the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief,
she ought to be afforded an opportunity to test her claim on the merits. Id. The countervailing
considerations for denying leave to amend include “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of
amendment.” Id. Absent proof of these concerns, “the leave sought should, as the rules require,
be ‘freely given.’” Id. An outright refusal to grant leave without any reason justifying the denial
is deemed an abuse of the Court’s discretion and “inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal
Rules.” Id.
In Kim v. Soule, 2014 WL 2117385, at *2 (D. Mass. May 20, 2014), the Court said that a
motion to amend should be granted unless it is apparent that it would be futile or reward undue
or intended delay. Id. Where leave to amend is sought prior to the completion of discovery and
the filing of motions for summary judgment, the standard for futility is whether the complaint as
In the present case, Larson contends that her proposed Second Amended Complaint was
rewritten in direct response to this court’s Memorandum and Order of March 27, 2020 (Doc. 59),
and the Cohen Defendants’ pending motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 83). To that
4
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 20
end, Larson seeks to correct or amplify the deficiencies, and be granted an opportunity to cure
them by amending the complaint. It is still relatively early in this litigation and the Second
Amended Complaint is not being offered for purposes of delay, bad faith or any other dilatory
motive, but only to comport with this Court’s recent ruling and the Cohen Defendants’ Motion.
Specifically, Larson is seeking leave to substitute her original tort claims against Dorland
and the Cohen Defendants of intentional interference with contractual relations, with claims for
the intentional interference with advantageous business relations. She is also seeking leave to
expand on her allegations that the actions of the Cohen Defendants constituted outrageous
conduct in trade or commerce in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A. Given the allegations that have
been pending for over a year, all of Larson’s proposed amendments are relatively minor.
Under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(c), the court may grant judgment on
the pleadings when the nonmovant can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that would
entitle the nonmovant to relief. Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631, 635 (1st Cir.
1988). This Court has already ruled that Larson does not have viable claims for tortious
interference with contracts because she has not shown that ASF and BBF breached their
essentially the same as the standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. v. Porro, 969 F. Supp. 2d 46, 49–50 (D. Mass. 2013). If
this court grants Larson’s Motion to Amend her Complaint, then dismissal is only appropriate if
citing Rodriguez–Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir.2007), and Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1967 (2007).
Based on this Court’s ruling on March 27, 2020, the Cohen Defendants’ pending Motion
for Judgment may have merit. However, if this Court grants Larson leave to amend her
5
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 6 of 20
complaint to include claims for intentional interference with advantageous business relationships
rather than claims for intentional interference with contracts, then the Cohen Defendants’ Motion
will be moot. Larson submits that her Second Amended Complaint will support a plausible
entitlement to relief, and will survive a Motion to Dismiss from both Dorland and the Cohen
Defendants.
III. Argument
In its Memorandum and Order of March 27, 2020, this Court determined that the ASF
agreement does not contain a promise by ASF as to the duration of time it was going to publish
Larson’s Story. Similarly, the Court determined that while Larson won the One City/One Story
competition, her agreement with the BBF does not mandate the BBF to publish The Kindest or to
use it in the One City/One Story project. (Doc. 59, p. 16). Therefore, there was no breach of
contract.
The Court further stated that in order for a plaintiff to have a cause of action for tortious
interference of contract, there must be a breach of contract, citing Pure Distributors, Inc. v.
Baker, 285 F. 3d 150, 155 (1st Cir. 2002). The Court reasoned that since neither ASF nor the
BBF was contractually obligated to continue to publish the story or to use it at all, and since
claim, the court dismissed these claims. (Doc. 59, pp. 16-17).
Now, of course, in their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Cohen Defendants are
seeking the same relief that Dorland received with respect to Larson’s claim for interference with
6
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 7 of 20
her agreement with the BBF. Specifically, the Cohen Defendants are seeking this Courts’
determination that there was no breach of contract by either ASF or the BBF, and therefore
Even if the Court similarly denies Larson’s intentional interference with contract claims
against the Cohen Defendants, Larson still has viable claims against all Defendants for tortious
interference with Larson’s advantageous business relationships with ASF and the BBF.
Therefore, granting leave to amend will not be an exercise in futility. Cooper v. Charter
Mass. Apr. 28, 2015) (“In assessing futility, the district court must apply the standard which
applies to motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”). In that context, “[f]utility means
that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”
Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996); see also, Rose v. Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 421 (6th Cir.2000) (“a proposed amendment is futile only if
it could not withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss”). Thus, where the question of futility is
raised in opposition to a motion for leave to amend a complaint, the proposed amended
complaint must satisfy the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Larson maintains that her amended complaint
A motion to amend a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is evaluated
by the Court based on the stage and timing of the litigation. Sandler v. Calcagni, 243 F.R.D. 24,
25 (D. Me. 2007). See, Steir v. Girl Scouts of the USA, 383 F.3d 7, 11-12 (1st Cir. 2004)
(Particularly disfavored are motions to amend whose timing prejudices the opposing party by
7
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 8 of 20
trial, and a likely major alteration in trial tactics and strategy....”) citing, Acosta–Mestre v. Hilton
Int'l of P.R., Inc., 156 F. 3d 49, 52-53 (1st Cir. 1998). Klunder v. Brown Univ., 778 F.3d 24, 34–
35 (1st Cir. 2015) (no error in permitting amendment to complaint even though discovery had
commenced and some depositions had been taken). As previously stated, it is still relatively early
in the discovery process, and Larson is the only party to have even started discovery. Thus,
allowing Larson leave to amend her complaint will not prejudice any of the opposing parties or
If granting leave to amend a complaint significantly alters the nature of proceedings, then
the Court may deny leave. Villanueva v. U.S., 662 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2011). In Villanueva,
both the district court and the Court of Appeals found that “amendment of the complaint would
be tantamount to restarting the proceedings, complete with new defendants, and an entirely new
With respect to Larson’s claims, all Parties have been aware that Larson is seeking
damages for the intentional interference with her valuable professional relationships from the
outset. The preamble to Larson’s original complaint (Doc. 1) as well as her Amended Complaint
(Doc. # 52) says as follows: “Plaintiff is also seeking damages for the intentional interference
even if Counts I through IV of the Amended Complaint did not address the harm Larson suffered
from the correct legal perspective (interference with advantageous business relations rather than
interference with contract), all parties have been on notice that Larson was seeking relief from
Defendants for their tortious interference with her advantageous business relationships. Thus,
Larson’s amended complaint will not substantially alter the course of this Action, because the
8
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 9 of 20
proposed amendment does not advance an entirely new theory of the recovery. Contrast Tiernan
v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1983), where plaintiff’s motion to amend
came a month after the date the court had originally targeted to begin trial, and only one and one-
half months before the actual start of trial. In Tiernan, the Court held that granting leave to
amend would have “invariably delayed the resolution of the case.” Id., at 3.
Here, granting leave to amend will not delay the resolution of this Action because the
parties are still in the early stages of discovery, and the issue addressed by an amendment to the
complaint does not give way to entirely new and unexpected legal issues.
Tort claims for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional
interference with advantageous business relationships are very closely related. Comeau v. Town
of Webster, Mass., 881 F. Supp. 2d 177, 189–90 (D. Mass. 2012). In fact, “under Massachusetts
law, the tort of interference with an advantageous business relationship apparently includes
within its ambit the tort of wrongful interference with an existing contract, and Massachusetts
courts “have not consistently distinguished between the two torts.” Hamann v. Carpenter, 937
F.3d 86, 92–93 (1st Cir. 2019), citing, United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 406 Mass. 811
(1990)). The existence of a binding contract mandating ASF to continue to publish The Kindest,
and mandating the BBF to use Larson’s Story in the One City/One Story project seems to be the
missing component of a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. However,
this does not negate a related claim by Larson for intentional interference with advantageous
business relationships.
relations, Larson must prove that (1) she had advantageous relationships with ASF and the BBF
(e.g., present or prospective contracts); (2) Dorland and Cohen Defendants had knowledge of the
9
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 10 of 20
relationships, (3) Dorland’s and/or the Cohen Defendants’ interference with the relationships, in
addition to being intentional, was improper in motive or means; and (4) Larson lost advantages
were a direct result of the Cohen Defendants’ actions. United Truck Leasing Corp., 406 Mass. at
816-7; Am. Private Line Services, Inc., v. Easter Microwave, Inc., 980 F.2d at 36 (1st Cir. 1992);
Blackstone v. Cashman, 448 Mass. 255, 260 (2007); (To recover for interference with
advantageous business relations, the plaintiff need not prove a binding contract, but she must
show a probable future business relationship from which there is a reasonable expectancy of
Larson clearly had written contracts with both ASF and with BBF. See Exhibits 2 and 3.
Under the ASF contract. Larson was paid $300 for a license to publish The Kindest. Under the
explicit terms of the BBF agreement, Larson was to forgo “financial compensation” in exchange
for the intangible but significant career benefit and notoriety of participating in the One City/One
Story project, as well as having tens of thousands of copies of her Story distributed in print and
electronic form. (See, Larson Aff., attached as Ex. 4). The existence of these contracts remains
undisputed. Additionally, both agreements had consideration of legal value that benefitted all
parties. This undermines the Cohen Defendant’s erroneous argument that Larson’s license was
“charitable” simply because there was no monetary exchange between Larson and the BBF.
Dorland knew about Larson’s relationship with ASF when she emailed ASF on June 5,
2018, and said, “I believe that the letter in Sonya’s story plagiarizes the letter I
10
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 11 of 20
wrote…” Dorland voluntarily suggested that ASF pull The Kindest, acknowledge the Dorland
Letter, and let her write an article for ASF about ethical issues germane to all writers.
Additionally, Dorland closed her email stating that she was “in the process of securing legal
counsel.” (See, Exhibit 5, email chain by and between Dorland and ASF.) Pembroke Country
Club, Inc. v. Regency Sav. Bank, F.S.B., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 34, 38, 815 N.E.2d 241, 245 (2004)
(“The elements of a case of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship are
by now firmly established. The plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that a business
relationship from which the plaintiff might benefit existed; the defendant knew of the
relationship; the defendant intentionally interfered with the relationship for an improper purpose
or by improper means; and the plaintiff was damaged by that interference.”). With regard to the
BBF, both Dorland and the Cohen Defendants knew of Larson’s relationship with the BBF when
they sent the July 3, 2018 Demand Letter (Ex. 6). The Defendants’ knowledge of Larson’s
Currently, there may well be a dispute as to whether the improper motive or means
However, whether or not Dorland’s actions and the Cohen Defendants’ respective actions vis-a-
vis Larson’s relationships with ASF and the BBF were improper is a matter for this court to
consider at a future time. (United Truck Leasing Corp., 406 Mass. at 817) (evidence of improper
motives or the use of improper means in relation to either the existing contract or the prospective
11
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 12 of 20
7. Larson’s lost advantages with the ASF and BBF contracts were a
direct result of the Defendants’ actions
While ASF did not have a contractual obligation to keep The Kindest on its website, it is
abundantly clear that Dorland’s actions led to ASF’s decision to withdraw The Kindest from
distribution, thus ending Larson’s beneficial contractual relationship with ASF. (See, Exhibit 7,
email chain by and between Dorland and ASF, including the June 25, 2018 email, from Rebecca
Markovits of ASF to Dorland: “I’m am writing to let you know that “The Kindest” is now no
longer up on our website. I hope this helps you find some resolution and closure to your natural
concerns.”).
Similar to the ASF contract, the BBF did not have a contractual obligation to use
Larson’s Story and distribute the 30,000 printed copies of Larson’s work it had already printed.
However, Dorland’s and the Cohen Defendant’s claims of plagiarism and copyright infringement
stopped the BBF in its tracks. If it were not for intervention by Dorland and the Cohen
Defendants, Larson’s story would have been distributed extensively as part of the One City/One
On June 18, 2018, Norah Piehl, Deputy Director of the BBF, emailed Dorland and stated,
After speaking with our legal counsel and with Sonya, and in order to alleviate your
concerns, we requested that Sonya completely redraft the portion of her story in question,
and she has now done so. Our lawyer has reviewed the rewritten text and we plan to
move forward with publication of this revised version, with a note in the
acknowledgments that it varies from the original story published in American Short
Fiction. The story will be distributed in mid-August.
In response to the BBF’s insistence that Larson’s story be published, the Cohen
Defendants sent their first “demand letter” to the BBF on July 3, 2018. [Ex.X] Unfortunately for
Larson, the BBF eventually decided to forgo its use of The Kindest. By email of August 13,
12
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 13 of 20
2018, Deborah Z. Porter, Founder and Executive Director of the BBF notified Larson that the
BBF decided to cancel One City One Story. In her email, Porter explains that the threats and
demands from Dorland and the Cohen Defendants, including the demand letter from July 3,
2018, caused the BBF to reconsider its position on publishing The Kindest. On August 13, 2018,
I am sorry to say that Norah and I have made the decision to cancel One City One Story
this year.
After thinking we had a path towards a solid agreement with Dawn Dorland and feeling
that we were out of danger from being sued, her lawyer was back in touch late last week
with new demands. There is seemingly no end to this and we can not afford to spend any
more time or resources at this moment or risk law suits in the future that could affect not
only us, but our sponsor for One City One Story.
Sadly for us, we have already printed 30,000 copies of your story using the
acknowledgement Dawn and her lawyer had approved (but now want to change.) That
represents a total loss in printing costs for us. This is obviously not the outcome that we
prefer, but we feel we have no other choice at this point.”
8. Larson’s Motion to Amend will allow her to test her claims on their
merits and should be allowed.
In order to resolve the differences between the torts of interference with contracts and
interference with advantageous business relations, and to resolve any alleged shortcomings in the
complaint regarding her Ch. 93A claims, Larson is seeking leave to amend her complaint against
both Dorland and the Cohen Defendants. (See, Note 5 to its Memorandum and Order (Doc. 59)
(“a claim for intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship does not require
Plaintiff to prove a breach of contract, but only, inter alia, interference with a ‘business
will moot the Cohen Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at this point and give
Larson the opportunity to test her claims on the merits. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. at 182-3.
13
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 14 of 20
B. The actions of the Cohen Defendants had a significant impact on trade and
commerce under M.G.L. Ch. 93A.
area not-for-profit business dedicated to educating and helping creative writers. (See, Am.
Larson entered her Short Story in the BBF’s One City/One Story contest with the hope
she might win. Larson knew that if she won, she would greatly enhance her career, because, like
in previous years, the Story would be widely disseminated to more than 30,000 people,
businesses and institutions all over the state. Furthermore, like in years past, her Short Story and
the fact she won the competition would be picked up by the press, publishers, writers, her
employer and colleagues, and she would make numerous appearances at events around Boston.
In short, the potential career and economic benefits to Larson for winning the competition were
After Larson won the contest, she and the BBF entered into a contract in which Larson
licensed the BBF to use and publish The Kindest. Under the contract heading of
“Consideration,” Larson agreed to let the BBF use her Story and to forgo “financial
compensation” in exchange for the significant career boost that winning the competition would
likely give her. (Ex. 3 (BBF Agreement), and Ex, 4, Larson Aff.).
The Cohen Defendants argue that Larson’s claims must fail because her interaction with
the BBF was not related to trade, commerce or business. The Cohen Defendants also claim that
they are not liable to Larson because there was not an attorney-client relationship between them.
As will be shown, these arguments fail under Ch. 93A because (1) Larson’s contract with the
14
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 15 of 20
BBF constitutes a business relationship that has a direct impact on trade or commerce; and (2)
Larson has accused the Cohen Defendants of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in
violation of M.G.L. c. 93A. The Cohen Defendants argue that Larson’s 93A claims must be
dismissed because the acts or practices complained of were not perpetrated in a business context.
Writing is Larson’s profession and business. Submitting to the BBF what Larson
believed was a contest winner was part of her plan to enhance her writing career. From years of
experience in the publishing industry, from attending past Boston Book Festivals, and from her
desire to become a successful professional writer, she knew that winning the contest was for
more than prestige; it was for the enhancement of her business.1 Quite simply, winning the BBF
contest was a dream come true for Larson, who is still in the early stages of her career. Suffering
through the trauma of having her dream shattered has been devastating. (Ex. 4, Larson Aff.).
See, Kirkland Constr. Co. v. James, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 559, 564 (1995). A law firm may be
subject to chapter 93A liability if it “joins its client in marketplace communications to the
adversary and if those communications knowingly or carelessly turn out to be false, misleading,
and harmful. (Coggins v. Mooney, 1998 WL 156998, at *5 (Mass.Super. Apr. 3, 1998). This is
1
Publishing is big business. In recent years, the U.S. publishing industry has generated $27.78 billion in net
revenue, representing 2.71 billion in units (volume). The U.S. is home to by far the largest publishing industry,
followed by China and Germany. Jul 4, 2017 https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-
d&q=how+big+is+the+publishing+business+in+the+united+states
15
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 16 of 20
what happened here. The Cohen Defendants’ activities crossed the boundary “from traditional
The Cohen Defendants injected themselves into “trade or commerce” by making false,
unreasonable and unwarranted demands against the BBF under the Copyright Act for Statutory
Damages and attorney’s fees with knowledge that they lacked legal justification. The claims
were advanced primarily to coerce the BBF into acquiescing to Dorland’s demands, all of which
ultimately led to the BBF cancelling The Kindest as the winner of the One City/One Story
contest. Kirkland Constr. Co. v. James, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 559 (1995). The decision by the BBF
to pull The Kindest from the Festival was devastating to Larson, damaging to the mission of the
BBF, and disappointing to the thousands of participants in the Festival. (Ex. 4, Larson Aff.).
“Trade” and “commerce” under c. 93A includes the “distribution of any services and any
property, tangible or intangible . . . and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly
affecting the people of this commonwealth.” (Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, § 1(b)) Mass. Gen. Laws
c. 93A, § 1(b).2 As the winner of the contest and as a professional writer, Larson had a business
relationship with the BBF. The Cohen Defendants thrust themselves into their business
relationship which ultimately interfered with trade and commerce relative to the distribution of
tangible and intangible property directly or indirectly affecting the people of Massachusetts.
Moreover, the fact that the BBF was organizing and promoting the Boston Book Festival
as part of its charitable mission is irrelevant to Larson’s c. 93A claim. BBF is not a party to this
lawsuit. What is relevant is that the Book Festival was an event that directly affected trade and
2
Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, § 1(b) defines “trade” and “commerce” as including “the advertising, the offering for
sale, rent or lease, the sale, rent, lease or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible,
real, personal or mixed, any security as defined in subparagraph (k) of section four hundred and one of chapter one
hundred and ten A and any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery, and any other article, commodity, or
thing of value wherever situate, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the
people of this commonwealth. [emphasis supplied]
16
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 17 of 20
commerce within the Commonwealth, and the unfair, deceptive and unwarranted demands made
by the Cohen Defendants against the BBF, directly impacted Larson and the people of this State.
The trade or commerce that the Cohen Defendants implicated directly impacted both
Larson and the BBF. This is the business relationship with which the Cohen Defendants have
interfered. The actions of the Cohen Defendants’ themselves in making erroneous and
misleading claims under the Copyright Act served to “inject” them into trade or commerce for
purposes of the statute. First Enterprises, Ltd. v. Cooper, 425 Mass. 344, 347 (1997)
(defendant’s actions interfered with trade or commerce); Nova Assignments, Inc. v. Kunian, 77
Mass. App. Ct. 34, 38 (2010) (In certain circumstances, a lawyer may owe a duty of care to a
The July 3, 2018 letter sent to the BBF by Defendant Jeffrey A. Cohen (Ex. 6) contains
demands in bold letters that the BBF cease and desist from printing, copying, distributing or
performing other activities related to The Kindest until Dorland’s claims are resolved. If the
Cohen Defendants’ demand for an advance copy of Larson’s Story was not met, the BBF was
told that they would prevent the publication of the Work and seek statutory damages as high as
The copyright to Dorland’s letter was not registered with the Copyright Office for almost
three years after it was published. (Ex. 10). Therefore, under Section 412 of the Copyright Act,
Dorland was never entitled to statutory damages or attorney’s fees. The Cohen Defendants claim
they were experts in “intellectual property” and they knew or should have known this fairly basic
tenet of copyright law. [Cohen Business Law Group’s specialties include Copyright Litigation
17
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 18 of 20
Larson’s previous counsel, James A. Gregorio emailed Attorney Cohen on July 17, 2018,
in response to Cohen’s demand letter to the BBF of July 3, 2020. Attorney Gregorio
“unequivocally” denied all of Cohen’s allegations. (Ex. 11). Gregorio then said, “Regrettably,
your client [Dorland] made no effort whatsoever to engage directly with Ms. Larson regarding
this matter.” Currently, there is no reason to believe that Attorney Gregorio’s statements were
untrue. Therefore, when the Cohen Defendants wrote directly to the BBF demanding a cessation
of printing, copying, and distribution, they were thrusting themselves into trade and commerce.
Specifically, the trade and commerce included the distribution of property, tangible or intangible,
which either directly or indirectly affected the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
IV. Conclusion
Larson respectfully requests that this Court grant her leave to amend her complaint by
adding claims for the intentional interference with the two business relationships she had with
ASF and the BBF that were advantageous to her employment, her career and her profession.
Larson also requests leave so she can clarify the impact that the Cohen Defendants had on trade,
commerce and business, which directly implicates violations of M.G.L. C. 93A. All of the
proposed amendments are advanced in good faith and will further Larson’s pursuit of justice, and
both will render moot the Cohen Defendants’ pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
18
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 19 of 20
SONYA LARSON,
By her attorney,
/s Andrew D. Epstein
July 15, 2020 ______________________________________
Andrew D. Epstein, Esquire (BBO #155140)
Barker, Epstein & Loscocco
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (617) 482-4900
Fax: (617) 426-5251
[email protected]
Certificate of Service
I certify that Plaintiff’s Memorandum (1) In Opposition To the Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings By Cohen Business Law Group and Jeffrey A. Cohen, Esq., and (2) In Support Of
Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Amend Her Complaint was filed through the court’s ECF
system and a copy was sent electronically on the day it was filed to all counsel of record.
19
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86 Filed 07/15/20 Page 20 of 20
20
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-2 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-2 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-2 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-2 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-2 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-3 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-3 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-3 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-4 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-4 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-4 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-4 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-5 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-5 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-5 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-6 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-6 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-6 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-7 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-7 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-8 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-8 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-9 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-9 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-10 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-10 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-10 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-11 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-11 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 86-11 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 3