With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 3 Gear has not moved for summary judgment with respect to its claims against the City of Medford. 4 In addition to Gear’s opposition to Goba’s motion for summary judgment, Gear has filed a motion to strike photographs, the affidavit of Harry B. Nelson, Jr. (“Nelson"), certain portions of Goba’s statement of facts, and other exhibits attached to Goba’s motion for summary judgment. To the extent that the motion to strike concerned photographs submitted with the Nelson affidavit, the court did not rely on those photographs in making its decision. The only f he shareholders could bring a 93A claim against an accounting firm that actively participated in the transaction at issue); Standard Register, 38 Mass.App.Ct. at 551 (<HOLDING>); Mongeau v. Boutelle, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 246,

A: holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company
B: holding that an abutter could not bring a 93a claim because there was no business relationship with the defendant
C: holding that the purchaser could bring a 93a claim against the real estate broker because the broker misinformed the plaintiff as to the acreage of the parcel and failed to disclose that the property was encumbered
D: holding that the purchaser could sustain a 93a claim against the president and vicepresident of a manufacturing company because they took an active role in the dealings with the plaintiff
D.