← All cases
2484CV02931Up to date

Abouelkhier, Dany vs. Virtual Fulfillment Center,LLC et al

Superior Court·Suffolk County·Last checked Jul 25, 2026, 8:04 PM·View on masscourts.org ↗

01— Where things stand right now

This is a fight over control of a Boston takeout/delivery company, Virtual Fulfillment Center, LLC. Dany Abouelkhier, who says he founded it and is its only recorded manager, sued the company and four other men he says pushed him out; they countersued him with nine claims of their own.

As of spring 2026, the court has denied Abouelkhier’s attempts to kill the counterclaims and to disqualify the other side’s lawyer, and he has finally answered the counterclaims. The judge extended the case schedule by 120 days but wrote “No further continuances,” and the May 28, 2026 summary judgment hearing was cancelled because nobody filed a motion. The case is now in discovery, with settlement talks reportedly ongoing.

02— The case in a nutshell

Virtual Fulfillment Center, LLC (VFC) is a Massachusetts LLC that runs a takeout/delivery food business. Dany Abouelkhier says he founded it, was its only manager on record with the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and opened its bank account.

In late 2024 things blew up. According to Abouelkhier’s filings, the other men involved with the company secretly hired attorney Alexander Levine to “oversee changes to our company structure” and handle “the removal of Dany from the manager role,” filed updates with the Secretary of State removing him, and then told him he had only ever been an “independent contractor.”

Abouelkhier sued in November 2024 and immediately asked for a temporary restraining order. That was denied. The defendants then answered and hit back with counterclaims accusing him of breach of contract, fraud, defamation, tortious interference, 93A violations, and keeping a company vehicle (conversion), plus asking the court to declare who actually controls VFC.

So at bottom this is an internal business divorce: two sides each claiming to be the legitimate voice of the same LLC, now fighting it out over a year and a half of motions.

03— Who's involved
04— What's happening now

The last year has been almost entirely Abouelkhier trying to get rid of the counterclaims, and mostly not succeeding.

He first moved to strike the counterclaims and won that in July 2025 — but only “without prejudice,” meaning the defendants could refile, which they did on September 29, 2025 after he filed an amended complaint. He then moved to dismiss the refiled counterclaims (including as a special anti-SLAPP motion under G.L. c. 231, § 59H) and separately moved to disqualify Attorney Levine.

On February 3, 2026, Judge Hornstine denied both. On the anti-SLAPP piece he said it was filed long after the statute’s 60-day window with no explanation, criticized Abouelkhier for “moving serially to dismiss this case over an extended period using different vehicles,” and held that even on the merits Abouelkhier hadn’t shown the counterclaims were based only on his petitioning activity. On disqualification, the court found the accusations “amorphous” and saw no basis to remove counsel — while leaving the door open to revisit it later.

After that, Abouelkhier had to actually answer the counterclaims. He got an assented-to extension, missed it by a day (blaming a February 2026 storm-related court closure and internet outage), moved for leave to file one day late, and the court allowed it. His answer denies essentially everything and raises twelve affirmative defenses, including that the defendants lack authority to sue on VFC’s behalf.

Most recently, all parties jointly asked to push the schedule out 120 days, telling the court discovery is still ongoing (it had been temporarily stayed by the anti-SLAPP motion) and that they are discussing settlement. The judge allowed it but wrote “No further continuances.” The May 28, 2026 summary judgment hearing was then taken off the calendar because no one filed a Rule 56 motion.

05— What's next

Under the amended tracking order in the joint motion the court allowed, discovery runs to roughly August 2026, summary judgment motions get served around September 2026 and filed by November 2026, with a Rule 56 hearing in December 2026 or as scheduled, a final pre-trial conference targeted for March 2027, and judgment by November 2027.

So the realistic next steps are depositions and document exchange, continued settlement talks, and then either a deal or summary judgment briefing. The judge’s “No further continuances” note means both sides should expect those dates to hold.

One wildcard: the February 2026 order expressly said counsel’s disqualification could be revisited “should the contours of this case change,” so the lawyer-conflict issue is not permanently dead.

06— Reading between the lines

Abouelkhier is representing himself and doing it aggressively and with real competence — his filings cite the right cases and are properly formatted. But the judge essentially told him he’s been fighting the same battle over and over through different procedural doors: motion to strike, then motion to dismiss, then anti-SLAPP special motion, then disqualify the other side’s lawyer. The court’s phrase “moving serially to dismiss this case over an extended period using different vehicles” is about as close as a judge comes to saying “enough.”

The anti-SLAPP motion in particular looks like a stretch. Anti-SLAPP is designed for early, fast dismissal of suits that punish someone for petitioning the government; filing it many months late, after already trying two other ways to kill the same claims, invited exactly the timeliness ruling he got. And it had a side benefit for him that the joint motion admits out loud: it temporarily stayed discovery. Whether that was the goal or a byproduct, it slowed the case down.

The disqualification motion is his strongest-sounding theory and his weakest procedural position. On substance, he has a genuinely awkward fact — an email from a defendant saying the lawyer would oversee “structural changes” and “the removal of Dany from the manager role.” One lawyer representing both the LLC and the faction trying to seize the LLC is a real conflict question. But he waited over a year after the appearance was filed, and Superior Court Rule 3 gives you ten days. The defendants pounced on that and cited case law calling late disqualification motions harassment and delay tactics. The court took the easy road: no clear showing, denied for now.

The defense side, for its part, is running a fairly conventional playbook — appear for everyone, deny the plaintiff’s story, counterclaim hard with nine counts including fraud, defamation, and 93A, and lean on procedural timeliness rules. The nine-count counterclaim including a claim over a company vehicle reads at least partly like pressure to make a self-represented former insider’s life expensive.

The real question the court hasn’t answered yet is the one that decides the case: was Abouelkhier lawfully removed as manager, or is the group that hired Levine acting without authority? There is no operating agreement, which is why this is so messy. The February order deliberately did not decide it — the judge said those are factual disputes for later. Expect that to be the heart of summary judgment or trial, if the parties don’t settle first, which their own joint motion says they’re trying to do.

A candid read, not legal advice.
07— The record, translated

Newest first — the plain-English reading leads; the court's wording follows.