LYNNFIELD — A federal civil rights violation lawsuit filed by Boston Clear Water Company, LLC and BCW owner Anthony Gattineri against the Town of Lynnfield has been dismissed.
Boston Clear Water had sued the Town of Lynnfield and numerous Lynnfield officials and entities alleging the town committed a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiffs of their civil rights.
The lawsuit also sought to enforce the company’s rights of equal protection, due process, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments under the Constitution.
“(The) plaintiffs allege that the Lynnfield officials conspired with several non-parties to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights and violated state law,” Judge Indira Talwani wrote in an Aug. 17 memorandum.
But Talwani disagreed.
“Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for violation of any constitutionally-protected right,” Talwani wrote in granting the town’s motion to dismiss the case.
In the complaint, Gattineri and BCW allege that the the Town had “conspired to discriminate against (the) plaintiffs, based upon Gattineri’s ethnicity and religion,” and that, “through the combined efforts of municipal departments and agencies and individuals working therein, (the Town) has implemented a policy of intimidation, harassment and discrimination towards plaintiffs, causing plaintiffs to suffer tremendous damage to their reputation and enormous monetary losses.”
The complaint further stated that “this action arises out of the ongoing, concerted effort by the Town to interfere with BCW’s right to freely use, enjoy and benefit from their property,” located at 165 Lowell St. in Lynnfield, better known as the Pocahontas Spring. Gattineri, who has residences in Florida and Winchester, had listed himself as the BCW manager in the complaint.
“Gattineri also has sought to enjoy the spiritual atmosphere of the Pocahontas Spring and freely exercise his religion, by creating space for private prayer and contemplation on the property,” BCW said in its complaint, which was filed on July 24, 2020 in U.S. District Court – Massachusetts.
In her decision, Talwani examined the plaintiffs’ claims of an alleged conspiracy.
“Plaintiffs allege that … Lynnfield officials began to conspire with the neighbors to discriminate against Gattineri based on his spiritual and religious (beliefs) ‘as part of an overall effort to drive (him) out of (t)own’ and “to take the public water supply that sources Pocahontas Spring.'”
The court found that the company’s claims that their First Amendment rights of freedom of assembly and free exercise of religion were violated were “insufficient to state a claim under the First Amendment” as they fell short of the threshold “substantial-burden” standard.
The court also sided with the Town on another claim in the lawsuit, which involved the company’s claim that the Town had violated its’ “fundamental right to earn a living” under the Fourteenth Amendment,” saying that the court has concluded that no such fundamental right exists.
The court also found for the Town on three other claims made by BCW: selective enforcement of the law and violation of the right to equal protection, private conspiracy to deny equal protection of the laws, and failure to prevent a conspiracy.
“(The) plaintiffs repeatedly assert that they were treated differently from similarly-situated individuals and businesses, but they provide few allegations in support of that conclusion,” Talwani said in her decision. “There is ample evidence from the state court litigation, however, that plaintiffs were subject to multiple enforcement orders, which have been upheld by the Superior and Land courts and that the Conservation Commission had the right to enter and inspect the property to evaluate compliance with those orders.”
While the court dismissed all of Boston Clear Water’s federal claims, it declined to issue a ruling on several related state claims, according to Town Counsel Tom Mullen.
“That means the plaintiffs can refile in state court with respect to the state claims,” said Mullen. “He can appeal with 30 days of judgment, but judgment has not yet been entered.”
