STOP THENOISE

Courts rule Nuisance is a State Matter
----
Mass Nuisance Lawsuit Settled
 

Casey et al v. Goulian et al

This is a summary of a lawsuit currently before the Massachusetts Superior Court. Five resident of Ayer, MA are suing 4 pilots and their aviation corporations for nuisance, a violation of Massachusetts state law. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants performed aerobatics over and near their residences in Ayer, MA after having been repeatedly advised that their aerobatic activity was disturbing and constituted a nuisance. May other aerobatic pilots, similarly advised, left the area voluntarily prior to the lawsuit.

STOP the NOISE is not a party to this lawsuit.

All of the plaintiffs are members of STOP the NOISE, Inc. They are acting independently in pursuing this legal remedy. 

March 2008, Ayer, MA

Parties Agree to Confidential Settlement Agreement

"The Plaintiffs are pleased with the result. As significant as the settlement are the two published cases that establish as precedent that residents have the right to seek relief in court for the actions of aircraft owners and pilots that seriously disturb residents in their homes."

Robert F. Casey
Atty for and Plaintiff in the
Ayer, MA Aviation Nuisance Lawsuit

Casey et al v. Goulian et al
Massachusetts Superior Court

CASE SUMMARY

May 2003 - Complaint
            Five (5) citizen homeowners in the Town of Ayer, Mass. file a civil action in the Massachusetts Superior Court stating that acrobatic and general aviation pilots are interfering with the peaceful use and enjoyment of their homes.  The civil action is for tortious “nuisance” seeking money damages and injunction against flights that interfere with their peace and quiet in their homes.   
Read the Complaint

June 2003 – Removal to Federal Court
            The defendant pilots file a notice of removal that automatically transfers the case to the United States District Court (federal court).  The defendant pilots claim that federal law prevents the plaintiff homeowners from maintaining a lawsuit against the defendant pilots.  The defendant pilots rely on this “doctrine of preemption” claming that federal law trumps state law.
Read the Defendants' Argument Against Remanding 

            The plaintiff homeowners respond by filing a motion to “remand” the case back to the Massachusetts Superior Court.  The plaintiff homeowners claim that the federal law has evolved so that States such as Massachusetts have the power to protect their citizens from unreasonable aviation nuisance.
Read the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Removal and to Remand

July 2003 – Remand from Federal Court to Superior Court
            The United States District Court remands the case stating that there is no total federal preemption of suits against pilots.  The case is returned to the Superior Court.  The plaintiff homeowners may maintain their nuisance action under state law.  The defendant pilots can assert a defense of preemption only if they demonstrate that the state civil action interferes with a federal purpose.  The federal court states that it has no jurisdiction over the case.
Read the Remand Decision

"For years many general aviation pilots believed that they could pilot their aircraft without concern for the rights of landowners and state law. Many pilots believed that landowners and homeowners had no remedy for those pilots that disregard the rights of homeowners. This decision is welcome as it brings the law into balance with recognition that homeowners do have the right to protect their quiet use and enjoyment of their homes. The decision will not in any way impact legitimate aviation interests."    Robert F. Casey

November 2004 -  Motion by Pilots
            The defendant pilots file for a partial summary judgment seeking to limit the plaintiff homeowners’ remedies and limit the evidence that may be introduced at trial.  The motion is denied in May 2005.  The defendant pilots are allowed to file a motion for full summary judgment, in essence a motion to dismiss the suit. 
Read the Defendants' Motion for Full Summary Judgment

 December 2005 – Hearing on Motion
            There is a hearing at the Massachusetts Superior Court on the defendant pilots’ motion for summary judgment.
Read the Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Joint Motion for Summary Judgment.

February 2007 - Decision on Motion
            The Superior Court Judge denies the defendant pilots’ motion and allows the case to be set for trial.
Read the Decision Regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment

March 2008 - Settlement
Sometime in late 2007 or early 2008, the parties to this lawsuit reached a settlement without going to trial. The parties issued a joint statement regarding the settlement.
Read the joint settlement statement here.

In providing STN with a copy of this joint statement, Atty. Robert F. Casey stated that

"The Plaintiffs are pleased with the result. As significant as the settlement are the two published cases that establish as precedent that residents have the right to seek relief in court for the actions of aircraft owners and pilots that seriously disturb residents in their homes."   Robert F. Casey

The citizens of Ayer, MA who stood tall and steadfastly defended their homes deserve our respect and admiration. They fought a long and arduous court battle against one of the best funded special interest groups in the country. Through their perseverance, and as a result of the excellent legal arguments presented by Bob Casey in both the US District Court and the Massachusetts Superior Court, precedent-setting decisions have been recorded that should greatly facilitate the process of getting a nuisance case before a judge and jury for the next plaintiff. This case has removed the pilot's greatest weapon - his ability to claim that he flies above the law.