seal

Court Case Record ALDATA SOLUTION INC vs. GOLUB CORPORATION 2013-J-0044 UID(34eb)


ALDATA SOLUTION INC vs. GOLUB CORPORATION Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-J-0044


 
Case Number2013-J-0044
Case TitleALDATA SOLUTION INC vs. GOLUB CORPORATION
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date01/28/2013
Close Date03/22/2013

Parties

CounselNameType
Daniel P. Tighe, EsquireAldata Solution IncPlaintiff/Respondent
Ronald M. Davids, Esquire Dale Cendali, Pro Hac Vice AttorneyGolub CorporationDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
01/28/2013 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Golub Corporation.^
01/28/2013 #2 RE#1: Appellate proceedings are stayed until 2/25/13. Status report due on or before that date regarding Superior Court's disposition of petitioner's pending motion for reconsideration. *Notice/attest/Billings, J.
02/25/2013 #3 Status report, filed by Golub Corporation.
02/26/2013 #4 Response to Status Report, filed by Aldata Solution Inc.
02/27/2013 #5 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Aldata Solution Inc.^
02/27/2013 #6 ORDER: Defendant/petitioner is granted leave to file a supplemental memorandum, not to exceed 15 pages, on or before 3:00 p.m. March 6, 2013. Plaintiff/respondent is granted leave to file a response to defendant/petitioner's petition and supplemental memorandum, not to exceed 20 pages, on or before 3:00 p.m. March 13, 2013 (Cohen, J.). Notice/attest/Billings, J.
02/28/2013 #7 RE#4: As the court is in receipt of plaintiff/respondent's opposition to the petition, the court's 2/27/13 ORDER is REVISED to the extent that its response to defendant/petitioner's supplemental memorandum is not to exceed 15 pages. *Notice.
03/06/2013 #8 Request to file a supplement to the record appendix, to its petition for interlocutory relief, filed by Golub Corporation. ^
03/06/2013 #9 Supplemental Memorandum in support of petition for interlocutory relief, filed by Golub Corporation. ^
03/06/2013 #10 Supplemental record appendix to supplemental petition for interlocutory relief, filed by Golub Corporation. ^
03/13/2013 #11 Response to the supplemental memorandum, filed by Aldata Solution Inc. ^
03/15/2013 #12 Motion to file reply memorandum in support of petition for interlocutory relief, filed by Golub Corporation.^
03/15/2013 Reply in support of paper #1 filed by Golub Corporation.^
03/22/2013 RE#10: Allowed. *Notice
03/22/2013 ORDER: Before me is a petition for interlocutory relief, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.), filed by the defendant and plaintiff-in-counterclaim, Golub Corporation (Golub), in which Golub requests that the single justice vacate an order of a judge of the Superior Court granting summary judgment to the plaintiff Aldata Solution, Inc. (Aldata) on Golub's counterclaims alleging fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment. While the petition arises in somewhat unusual circumstances, in that the judge initially ruled that these claims could proceed, but, upon reconsideration, concluded that Aldata was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the issue before me reduces itself to whether the judge's ultimate decision arose from any clear error of law or abuse of discretion. See generally Jet- Line Services, Inc. v. Board of Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. 645, 646 (1988). After review of the voluminous filings submitted in conjunction with this petition, and considering the New York authorities called to my attention, I am unpersuaded that the judge committed any clear error of law or abuse of discretion that would warrant intervention by the single justice. The petition is, accordingly, denied (Cohen, J.). Notice/attest/Billings, J.