AFTER A JUDGE earlier this week denied an injunction to stop negotiations to develop a new Springfield courthouse, the state agency in charge of the project is looking to dismiss the case that losing bidders brought to court.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell sent a motion to dismiss the case to opposing council Thursday on behalf of the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, according to the attorney general’s office. It had not yet been filed in court as of late Friday afternoon.
On Tuesday, Hampden Superior Court Judge David Hodge found there was “no legal or logical support” for allegations of conflict of interest tied to the $2 billion redevelopment of the courthouse in Springfield, and denied the injunction that losing bidders sought to pause the project.
Springfield-based developers Jeb Balise and Dinesh Patel brought the suit alleging there had not been a fair selection process. The Trial Court and DCAMM chose development team Liberty Junction for the project — among its principals are John Barros, who began working as interim executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority during the course of the selection process, and Conan Harris, husband to Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.
Hodge, however, found the evidence presented in court did not establish a violation of conflict-of-interest law.
The motion asks the court to dismiss “all claims against DCAMM with prejudice,” arguing the same legal deficiencies Hodge already flagged in his decision.
“As this Court is aware, the operative Complaint has been brought by two disgruntled proposers seeking to overturn DCAMM’s discretionary decision that Liberty Junction’s proposal for the new Springfield Regional Justice Center (“SRJC”) provided the best value to the Commonwealth (i.e., the Trial Court) by approximately $300 million. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have asserted incorrect and inapplicable legal claims and theories against DCAMM,” it says.
A memorandum, also sent by the attorney general’s office, says, “These issues with the Complaint are more than mere defects — they are fatal flaws, dooming the Complaint, and requiring its dismissal.”
It cites “issues” including, “legal mistakes” in the plaintiffs’ complaint “in its assertions that the state ethics laws create a cause of action against DCAMM” and “allegations that do not plausibly state a claim because Plaintiffs have not identified any facts indicating that DCAMM has violated the law.”
A spokesperson for Balise and Patel’s companies, USPB JV. LLC and Springfield Tower Square, respectively, said they plan to oppose the motion.
“The people of Springfield deserve a procurement process that is fair, complete, and complies with the law. A motion to dismiss is a routine step in litigation. We will oppose it, we will proceed with our appeal, and we will continue to fully press our claims,” the spokesperson said.
In a statement, Liberty Junction said the motion is “another strong argument seeking dismissal of the lawsuit.”
“It is time for the plaintiffs to think of the people of Hampden County, the hardworking courthouse workers, judges to court officers, and stop these legal delay tactics letting us all get on with the building of a new courthouse to replace a sick, unhealthy courthouse. The people of Hampden County deserved this a decade ago,” the development team wrote.
