seal

Court Case Record ADVANCED MATH AND SCIENCE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL vs. DAVID P. DEPIETRI & others 2012-J-0441 UID(5539)


ADVANCED MATH AND SCIENCE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL vs. DAVID P. DEPIETRI & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0441


 
Case Number2012-J-0441
Case TitleADVANCED MATH AND SCIENCE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL vs. DAVID P. DEPIETRI & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date11/30/2012
Close Date03/04/2013

Parties

CounselNameType
Marisa L. Pizzi, EsquireAdvanced Math and Science AcademPlaintiff/Petitioner
Theodore J. Folkman, EsquireDavid P. DePietriDefendant/Respondent
Theodore J. Folkman, EsquireForest Street Building 165, LLCDefendant/Respondent
Theodore J. Folkman, Esquire201 Forest Street, LLCDefendant/Respondent
Craig HolbrookDefendant
John M. BrucatoDefendant
Theodore J. Folkman, EsquireRosewood Management Associates,Defendant/Respondent
Mark SweeneyDefendant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
11/30/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Advanced Math and Science Academy Charter School. ^
12/03/2012 #2 RE#1: Action on the petition is stayed pending the trial court's disposition of the counterclaim plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Status report due on or before January 3, 2013. *Notice/Attest/Rup, J.
12/07/2012 #3 Memorandum of law, filed by 201 Forest Street, LLC.^
01/03/2013 #4 Joint Status report, filed by Advanced Math & Science Academy Charter School & 201 Forest Street LLC. ^
01/04/2013 RE#3: Action on the petition is stayed to 2/4/13 pending the trial court's disposition of the counterclaim plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Status report due on or before that date. *Notice/Attest/Rup, J.
03/04/2013 ORDER: Before me is the plaintiff's petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.) seeking single justice relief from an order of a judge of the Superior Court allowing, in part, the defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the plaintiff challenges the injunction to the extent that it prohibits the plaintiff from imposing upon the defendants and their maintenance staff certain conditions on access to the leased premises for the purpose of maintenance or repairs. A request for a preliminary injunction is addressed to the discretion of the trial court judge, and a single justice will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion in the absence of a clear error of law or abuse of discretion. See Jet-Line Services, Inc. v. Board of Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 646 (1988). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the defendants were required to demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm will result from denial of the injunction; and (3) that, in light of the defendants' likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff outweighs the potential harm to the defendant in granting the injunction. Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 617, (1980). After review of the parties' submissions, I am unpersuaded that the trial court judge applied a legally incorrect standard or abused her discretion in concluding, on the record before her, that the defendants had met the criteria for injunctive relief. Accordingly, the petition is denied. (Cohen, J.). Notice/attest/Rup, J.