Attorney Profiles

Thomas E. Sartini, III

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 and has extensive litigation experience.  He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in various business and commercial matters, real estate and construction disputes, and individuals in tort and insurance claims.  He also has extensive experience in analyzing and evaluating cases, advising clients as to their legal and business interests, and has tried numerous cases to a jury verdict as first chair counsel.  Mr. Sartini 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, and is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association.

Mr. Sartini attended the Massachusetts School of Law as an evening student, graduating in 1997 in the top quarter of his class.  He was a staff member of the MSL Law Review having 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.  He then obtained a degree in paralegal studies, with a concentration in civil litigation from Boston University Metropolitan College in 1991.

A sampling of Attorney Sartini's recent cases:

W.L. French Excavating Corp. v. BATG Environmental, et al., MICV2009-03028

Attorney Sartini recently obtained a large judgment on behalf of his client, an excavation company, who was a subcontractor working on a public project. Attorney Sartini filed an action in the Middlesex Superior Court citing the defendant general contractor's failure to pay for labor, materials and services rendered.  Within the judgment favorable to Attorney Sartini's client, and pursuant to  Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Attorney Sartini was also able to recover his client's attorney fees incurred in the pursuit of its rights.

Matusevich v. Rothberg, 200949CV1076 (Framingham Div.)

A homeowner sought the assistance of Davagian & Associates in pursuing a roofing contractor who used poor workmanship in the installation of a new roof on a residential home.  The defective roof leaked water into the interior of the home, causing substantial property damage. Attorney Sartini was recently able to secure a judgment on behalf of the homeowner, which included double damages and the recovery of attorney fees & costs pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, as a result of the roofers poor workmanship and failure to make the needed repairs.

Rockstone Capital v. Mass Heavy Equipment Rental Corp., et al, SUCV2008-02270

Attorney Sartini defended a local heavy equipment rental company against an out of state financial institution on a large collection matter brought in Suffolk Superior Court.  Although Mass Heavy admitted that a balance was owed on a small business line of credit it had obtained in 2002, it contested Rockstone's right to collect default damages,  an escalated interest rate of 20%, penalties, and attorney fees.  In an effort to reduce Mass Heavy's exposure, Attorney Sartini was able to convince the Court that the signatures of Mass Heavy's President on the loan documents appeared to have been the result of a cut-and-paste photocopy forgery.  The matter is presently on appeal regarding the proper measure of damages.

The Backyard Collaborative v. Lodi, 0811CV1849 (Lowell Div.)

In response to a claim by a local design-build professional that the homeowners owed it money for services rendered, Attorney Sartini successfully defended the homeowners at trial in the Lowell District Court.  The jury rejected the design-build professional's claim that it was owed money for services rendered and instead found that the professional had overcharged the homeowners based on the contract.  The jury awarded the homeowners the recovery of their overpayment to the design-build professional.

CourterCo, Inc. v. Cimbrelo, et al., MICV2007-02328

An Indiana manufacturer sought to recover money owed to it by an internet vendor located in Massachusetts.  Attorney Sartini represented the manufacturer.   After commencing a lawsuit Attorney Sartini was able to secure a substantial judgment for his client, including the recovery of contractual interest and attorney fees accrued in the debt collection effort.

W.L. French Excavating Corp. v. Tarantino Insurance Agency, MICV2006-00856

Attorney Sartini represented a local excavating contractor against an insurance broker who failed to list the contractor's brand new excavator on its equipment ins. policy.  The new excavator was subsequently stolen from a job site.  Initially, the insurance broker refused to accept responsibility for his failure to schedule the excavator.  The matter was litigated and Attorney Sartini represented the contractor owning the excavator at trial.  On the second day of the jury trial, the insurance broker voluntarily agreed to pay the contractor the maximum recovery possible under the applicable law.

A.J. Rose Flooring Inc. v. Floramo, 2006-0732 (Peabody Div.)

Davagian & Associates brought a claim on behalf of A.J. Rose Flooring, Inc. to recover a balance due for services rendered to a homeowner for the sale and installation of 3,400 square feet of premium hardwood flooring.  In response, the homeowner counterclaimed alleging that A.J. Rose Flooring, Inc. defectively installed the hardwood flooring, causing damage to the home.  The homeowner alleged that its damages stemming from that flooring installation exceeded $100,000.00.  Attorney Sartini successfully defended A.J. Rose Flooring, Inc. against the homeowner, obtaining a defense verdict from a jury after four days of trial.  Attorney Sartini was able to prove to the jury that the homeowner greatly exaggerated his alleged damages, which were not supported by the evidence.  The jury not only rejected the homeowner's claims but also found for A.J. Rose Flooring Inc. on its claim to recover the balance it was owed from the homeowner for services rendered on the job.

Funari v. Cronin, WOCV2004-01949

The 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 his agreement to purchase an 83-acre parcel did not close at the time specified by the agreement.  The defendant, Cronin, did not want to sell the parcel to Funari because he had accepted a subsequent offer for substantially more money.  Furthermore, Cronin filed a counterclaim to keep Funari's deposit as liquidated damages due to Funari's alleged failure to be 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 and it deemed the same to be null and void. The Court ordered that the parties be placed in the same position that they were prior to the execution of the purchase and sale agreement.  Both parties appealed and the lower Court's decision was affirmed by the Appeals Court.

iBasis, Inc. v. Macro Communications, Inc., SUCV2004-04047

Attorney Sartini successfully litigated a contract action on behalf of iBasis, Inc., an international telecommunications provider, in a substantial collections matter for services rendered and owing.  Attorney Sartini secured a favorable judgment for iBasis at the Trial Court level, and then defeated the defendant's appeal regarding its claim that the judgment be vacated to permit it to enforce an arbitration clause contained in the sales contract.

Gabrian International, Ltd. v. Konnext, Inc., MICV2004-00858

Attorney Sartini successfully represented and defended Konnext, Inc. in a collections matter commenced by Gabrian International Inc.  Gabrian manufactured and sold to Konnext component parts that Konnext intended to install in a finished product that it manufactured. However, the component parts were wholly nonconforming to the Konnext's specifications and Konnext refused to pay for either the tooling or the nonconforming goods. .  Gabrian sued Konnext to recover the invoiced amount for tooling and manufacturing the component parts. The issues of timely rejection, efforts 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.

Santos v. Campers Inn of Raynham, Inc., NOCV2000-00188

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 for his client from a jury after a five full days of trial in the Plymouth Superior Court, Brockton Division.