News
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Attorneys Triumph in Land Court
In late December of 2020, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP attorneys, David DeLuca and Rachel Mills, received a favorable result for the Town of Natick in the trial of Mechanic Willow LLC v. Natick Planning Board. In March 2018, the Natick Planning Board approved a site plan for a neighborhood park known as the Navy Yard, however, abutting property owner, Mechanic Willow LLC, appealed the decision to the Land Court. Litigation for this trial began in April of 2018 and continued until November of 2020. Mechanic Willow submitted their amended complaint in May 2018 containing six counts, four of which were denied within the first few months. Issues regarding standing as well as the Planning Board’s consideration of traffic, parking, and circulation proceeded to a three-day, in-person trial at the Land Court in October-November, 2020.
On December 28, 2020, the Land Court issued their decision affirming the Natick Planning Board’s decision to approve the Navy Yard site plan. As stated in the Judgement, “MW failed to offer at trial any evidence that the Board’s conclusion was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise departed from the Board’s usual practices in reviewing vehicle and pedestrian circulation issues arising from as-of-right uses” The Court also found that Mechanic Willow failed to prove that parking is or will be inadequate in any way. After receiving the Court’s decision, Mr. DeLuca comments, “The case is noteworthy as a significant win for the Town insofar as the vigor of the litigation and the further development of standards for Site Plan Review in land use law.”
Formerly an Assistant District Attorney with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, Mr. DeLuca handles a full spectrum of tort, contract, land use and workers’ compensation litigation matters. He is experienced in all phases of state and federal trial and appellate court advocacy and represents municipal clients regarding zoning matters at town meeting and before trial and appellate courts. Mr. DeLuca is a member of the Massachusetts, Norfolk County and Quincy Bar Associations, member for the Massachusetts Bar Association Joint Bar Committee on Judicial Appointments, and former Chairman of a regional Hearing Committee for the Board of Bar Overseers. Mr. DeLuca is a graduate of Boston College and Suffolk University Law School.
Ms. Mills’ practice is primarily focused on the areas of labor and employment law. Ms. Mills was a summer associate with the firm during law school. Since joining the firm, Ms. Mills has participated in arbitrations, negotiations of collective bargaining agreements, drafting litigation documents, and research on labor and employment matters. Ms. Mills graduated summa cum laude from Boston College in 2016 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and a minor in French. She received her Juris Doctorate from Northeastern University School of Law in 2019. During law school, she held internships at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts working with Magistrate Judge Kelley and at Veterans Legal Services in Boston.
United States Supreme Court Opens the Door for Special Education Students’ Right to Bypass Due Process Hearings When Also Suing School District for Money Damages Under ADA: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. ___(2023)
In a unanimous ruling issued on March 21, 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided in favor of a 27-year-old deaf student who sued his Michigan school district, claiming he was denied the services of a qualified interpreter for years, and was misled by teachers and administrators about his progress in school. The student, Miguel Perez, only sought monetary damages. The Court held that he was free to sue the district for money damages due to discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court found that he did not have to “exhaust his administrative remedies,” prior to bringing such an action for damages. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in a case involving the rights of a disabled student requires a litigant to file and complete a due process hearing before an agency like the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on all claims stemming from a school district's requirement to provide a student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
United States Supreme Court Opens the Door for Special Education Students’ Right to Bypass Due Process Hearings When Also Suing School District for Money Damages Under ADA: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. ___(2023)
In a unanimous ruling issued on March 21, 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided in favor of a 27-year-old deaf student who sued his Michigan school district, claiming he was denied the services of a qualified interpreter for years, and was misled by teachers and administrators about his progress in school. The student, Miguel Perez, only sought monetary damages. The Court held that he was free to sue the district for money damages due to discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court found that he did not have to “exhaust his administrative remedies,” prior to bringing such an action for damages. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in a case involving the rights of a disabled student requires a litigant to file and complete a due process hearing before an agency like the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on all claims stemming from a school district's requirement to provide a student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Braintree, MA
50 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 410,
Braintree, MA 02184
Boston, MA
75-101 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (617) 479-5000
Tel: (888) 841-4850
Fax: (617) 479-6469
Quincy, MA
Crown Colony Plaza
300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410
P.O. Box 9126
Quincy, MA 02169-9126