Court Case Record ALBERT M. JUERGENS vs. MICROGROUP, INC. 2011-J-0077


Court Case Number: 2011-J-0077

Case Number2011-J-0077
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtWorcester Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date02/23/2011
Close Date04/04/2011


Joseph M. Connors, Jr., EsquireAlbert M. JuergensPlaintiff/Respondent
Todd S. Rosenfield, EsquireMicroGroup, Inc.Defendant/Petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
02/23/2011 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by MicroGroup, Inc.
02/23/2011 #2 Motion to file memorandum in excess of page limits , filed by MicroGroup, Inc.
02/23/2011 #3 RE#1: Action on the within is stayed pending trial court action on motion for reconsideration and stay. Status report to be filed on or before 3/23/11. Notice/attest/Curran, J. *Notice.
03/21/2011 #4 Status report, filed by MicroGroup, Inc.
03/22/2011 #5 RE#3: Appellate proceedings stayed to 04/06/11. Status report due 04/06/11. Notice/attest/Curran, J. *Notice.
03/31/2011 #6 Second Status report, filed by MicroGroup, Inc.
04/04/2011 #7 ORDER: The defendant has filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.), seeking review of a Superior Court order that denied defendant's motion, filed pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6), to dismiss Count IV of the plaintiff's complaint. Count IV alleged the defendant's violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148-150, when it failed to pay severance to the plaintiff following the termination of his employment with the company. To the extent that the defendant's petition requests the single justice to vacate the judge's denial of the motion to dismiss and direct the entry of an order dismissing Count IV, the petition must be denied because the single justice is without authority to grant the relief requested, which would be outcome determinative. See Mass.R.App.P. 15(c) ("a single justice may not dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or other proceeding"). The defendant's petition further requests that the single justice grant the defendant leave to take an interlocutory appeal from 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). Because the record has not yet been fully developed at this juncture of the litigation, as it relates to the Wage Act claim, and because the defendant has not made a persuasive showing in this case for overriding the strong judicial policy against disfavored piecemeal interlocutory appeals, the request for leave to take an interlocutory appeal is denied. (Fecteau, J.). Notice/attest/Curran, J./image
04/07/2011 Motion to reconsider paper #5, filed by MicroGroup, Inc.
04/11/2011 RE#6: The motion for reconsideration of the Order by the single justice, dated 4/4/11, is allowed, and upon reconsideration, the order denying relief is to stand (Fecteau, J.). Notice/attest/Curran, J.. *Notice.
04/13/2011 Opposition to Defendant Microgroup, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration filed Albert M. Juergens.