seal

Court Case Record ADRIANNA CARRILLO vs. JULIA LONDERGAN 2012-J-0373 UID(e8aa)


ADRIANNA CARRILLO vs. JULIA LONDERGAN Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0373


 
Case Number2012-J-0373
Case TitleADRIANNA CARRILLO vs. JULIA LONDERGAN
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk Probate & Family
CourtSuffolk Probate & Family
Court Address
Phone
Field Date10/09/2012
Close Date10/31/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
Susan Correia-Champa, EsquireAdrianna CarrilloPlaintiff/Respondent
David P. Sorrenti, EsquireJulia LonderganDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/09/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Julia Londergan.
10/22/2012 #2 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Adrianna Carrillo.
10/31/2012 #3 ORDER: The defendant has filed a petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.), seeking review of a temporary order of the Suffolk Probate and Family Court granting the plaintiff temporary legal custody of the parties' two minor children. The defendant requests that the single justice vacate the order. Single justice relief should be reserved for truly extraordinary and exceptional cases and provided only in a stinting manner. Edwin R. Sage Co. v. Foley, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 20, 25 (1981). Such exceptional circumstances are not presented here. "In most cases, based on the deference normally accorded determinations by the judge who heard the matter in the first instance, the single justice will decline to act on an application for relief under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., that does not disclose clear error of law or abuse of discretion." Jet Line Servs., Inc. v. Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 646 (1988). See also Westinghouse Bdcst. Co. v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. 10 Mass. App. Ct. 70, 75 (1980); Carabetta Enterprises, Inc. v. Schena, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 392 (1988). The custody determination was the result of factually complex and extensive proceedings in multiple courts. The trial court judge has been involved in the proceedings related to this matter since 2008. The proceedings are ongoing. The judge has ordered the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and trial on the parties' complaints for modification is scheduled for February, 2013. For all of these reasons, I conclude that the judge's ruling did not constitute an error of law or an abuse of discretion that warrants the entry of single justice relief. (Sullivan, J.). *Notice/Attest/Armstrong, J.
10/31/2012 #4 Motion to strike, filed by Julia Londergan.
11/01/2012 RE#4: The motion is denied as to paragraphs 1 and 2, and allowed as to paragraph 3. The petition remains denied for the reasons stated in the order of 10/31/12 (Sullivan, J.). Notice/attest/Armstrong, J.