In Haverhill Stem LLC v. Jennings, defendants Lloyd Jennings and Brad Brooks allegedly engaged in a prolonged campaign of demands, threats, and legal challenges against plaintiffs, Haverhill Stem LLC (Stem) and its owner Caroline Pineau, after Stem leased the property next door to defendants to operate a state-licensed cannabis retail dispensary. Defendants demanded payment of $30,000 — which they claimed was owed for a deck constructed on the neighboring property prior to Stem’s tenancy — and made repeated threats when plaintiffs refused to pay.

Plaintiffs filed suit in Superior Court in June 2019, asserting claims for violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter 93A, civil conspiracy, and defamation. Defendants argued that litigation privilege shielded them from civil liability for their statements and conduct.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the Chapter 93A count. Defendants defeated the Chapter 93A claim despite evidence of repeated monetary demands, escalating threats, and a coordinated effort to interfere with plaintiffs’ business operations. This outcome reflects that not every aggressive or tortious course of conduct will rise to the level of an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the statute.

The failure of the Chapter 93A claim had direct downstream effects on plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim, ultimately proving fatal to that count on appeal. The trial judge had instructed the jury that the underlying tort supporting the civil conspiracy claim was “extortion,” defined in the jury charge as “coercion by improper means that is designed to reap an economic reward.” The appeals court acknowledged that this conduct could potentially constitute actionable conduct under Chapter 93A, but noted that because the jury had already found for defendants on the 93A claim, there was no viable underlying tort to support the conspiracy verdict. As a result, the appeals court reversed the judgment on the civil conspiracy claim, vacated the $90,000 conspiracy damages award entered against both defendants, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of defendants on that claim and recalculation of damages.

This chain of outcomes illustrates that a successful defense of a Chapter 93A claim can effectively collapse related conspiracy claims that depend on an underlying unfair or deceptive act as their predicate tort. Where a plaintiff attempts to package aggressive business conduct as both a Chapter 93A violation and a civil conspiracy, a defense verdict on the 93A count may eliminate the conspiracy claim entirely, reducing overall exposure.