Attorney Profiles

Thomas E. Sartini, III joined Davagian & Associates in 2006, after working for Healy & Healy, P.C., a boutique trial firm, for six years.  Mr. Sartini has been an attorney since 1997. He has extensive experience litigating and trying cases in Massachusetts, and has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in various business and commercial matters, including real estate and construction disputes, as well as individuals in tort and insurance claims. Mr. Sartini has extensive experience in analyzing and evaluating cases, advising clients as to their legal and business interests, and has tried multiple cases to a jury verdict as first chair counsel. He has also represented clients at bench trials, arbitrations, and mediations.

Mr. Sartini is a member of the Massachusetts Bar, as well as the bars of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Sartini is also a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the North Middlesex County Bar Association.

Mr. Sartini attended the Massachusetts School of Law as an evening student. He graduated in 1997 in the top quarter of his class and was a staff member of the MSL Law Review. He contributed to articles regarding the Commonwealth's gratuity statute and remedies and damages arising from breached purchase and sale agreements.

Prior to law school, Mr. Sartini graduated from Tabor Academy in 1986. From there, he attended Union College in Schenectady, NY, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in English in 1990. Mr. Sartini then obtained a degree in paralegal studies, with a concentration in civil litigation, from Boston University Metropolitan College in 1991.

A sampling of case summaries:

Cianci Masonry Co. v. Old Boston Restorations, Inc.

Attorney Sartini successfully represented a masonry company in a claim against a property owner for failure to pay for services rendered. Attorney Sartini was able to prove at trial that the masonry company provided labor and services that substantially added value to the property to the owner's benefit. Attorney Sartini obtained a favorable verdict for the firm's client, Cianci Masonry Co.

Funari v. Cronin

This case involved a dispute over a purchase and sale agreement. The plaintiff, Funari, filed suit seeking an order from the court for specific performance because a deal to purchase an 83-acre parcel did not close in a timely manner. The defendant, Cronin, did not want to sell to Funari because he had accepted a subsequent offer for substantially more money. Furthermore, Cronin filed a counterclaim to keep Funari's deposit as a liquidated damage due to Funari's alleged failure to be willing, able, and ready to close on the agreed closing date. Attorney Sartini represented Funari at trial. Following closing arguments, the Court, sua sponte, decided that the purchase and sale agreement was unenforceable as it deemed the same to be null and void. The Court ordered that the parties be placed in the same position that they were in prior to the execution of the purchase and sale agreement. Both Parties are presently appealing the decision.

iBasis, Inc. v. Macro Communications, Inc.

Attorney Sartini successfully litigated a contract action on behalf of iBasis, Inc., an international telecommunications provider, in a large collections matter for services rendered and owing. Attorney Sartini secured a favorable judgment at the Trial Court level, and then defeated the defendant's appeal on the issue of enforceability of an arbitration clause in the sales contract.

Gabrian International, Ltd. V. Konnext, Inc.

Attorney Sartini successfully represented and defended Konnext, Inc. in a collections matter commenced by Gabrian International Inc. for goods sold. Gabrian sold Konnext goods that failed to conform to Konnext's specifications. More specifically, Gabrian manufactured component parts that Konnext intended to install in a finished product that it manufactured. The component parts were wholly nonconforming to Konnext's specifications, and thus frustrated Konnext's purpose of using those parts. Gabrian sued Konnext to recover the invoice amount for tooling of the component part and for the manufactured component parts. 

The dispute arose when Konnext refused to pay for either the tooling or the nonconforming goods. The issues of timely rejection, effort to cure, and cover pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code were central to the dispute. The claim settled for an amount far less than that being sought by Gabrian.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Adventure World RV, et al.

In response to numerous allegations of unfair trade practices, the State Attorney General's Office filed suit against a recreational vehicle dealer, its principals, and family members. The Commonwealth asserted individual claims against our client, the brother of the principal owner of the dealership. Our client possessed no ownership interest or control in the dealership, and was simply a salesman. The Commonwealth attempted to attach and secure our client's personal assets. Attorney Sartini successfully defeated the Commonwealth's efforts, exposing the Commonwealth's lack of a reasonable likelihood of success against our client. The Commonwealth shortly thereafter voluntarily dismissed the action against our client.

Santos v. Campers Inn of Raynham, Inc.

This case involved a claim of a defective recreational vehicle. The complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act (Ch. 93A). Attorney Sartini obtained a defense verdict after a five-day jury trial in the Plymouth Superior Court, Brockton Division.

The Estate of Henry Charles Scott v. Amtrak

This case involved two separate fall-down incidents by the plaintiff's decedent; at his place of employment and the other at a medical office during a return-to-work physical mandated by Amtrak. The plaintiff commenced suit pursuant to the Federal Employer Liability Act (FELA), which requires a minimal threshold to prove negligence and causation of damages. Regarding the first fall, the plaintiff claimed he sustained a closed head injury with resulting permanent cognitive deficits. He remained out of work for fifteen months until he was approved to undergo a return to work physical. At the physical, the plaintiff fell off the examination table, struck his head against the wall of the examination room, and broke his neck. He developed paraplegia as a result, and subsequently died. Attorney Sartini successfully defeated the wrongful death claim on summary judgment, and tried the closed head injury claim to a jury. Trial lasted five days, and resulted in a plaintiff's verdict. However, the case settled for an amount below the verdict while the case was on appeal.