and counterclaims under ch. 93A were tried to the court along with the requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. The jury found against PH on all of its claims except for s., 900 F.2d 397, 399 (1st Cir.1990) (requiring either “bottom-line litigatory success” or “catalytic effect in bringing about a desired result” for social security plaintiff to be entitled to attorneys’ fees). Moreover, outside of the civil rights context, an award of zero damages, supported by a rational basis in the record, is generally considered a judgment for defendant. See, e.g., Ruiz-Rodriguez v. Colberg-Comas, 882 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir.1989) (stating that award of zero damages is “commonly viewed as, in effect, a judgment for defendant”); Poulin Corp. v. Chrysler Corp., 861 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Farrar, — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 573-74
holding that to survive a motion for summary judgment a party must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial holding that upon award of zero damages plaintiff has failed to establish an essential part of its proof and judgment should have been entered for defendant holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish product identification holding defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal holding that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant breached its duty to act in good faith