seal

Court Case Record ALERE INC & another vs. DAVID WALLACE & another 2015-J-0450 UID(1893)


ALERE INC & another vs. DAVID WALLACE & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2015-J-0450


 
Case Number2015-J-0450
Case TitleALERE INC & another vs. DAVID WALLACE & another
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date11/19/2015
Close Date12/14/2015

Parties

CounselNameType
Kenneth S. Leonetti, Esquire Caroline Stoker Donovan, EsquireAlere IncPlaintiff/Respondent
Kenneth S. Leonetti, Esquire Caroline Stoker Donovan, EsquireArriva Medical LLCPlaintiff/Respondent
Michael N. Sheetz, Esquire Connor R. Cobean, Esquire Scott L. Cagan, Pro Hac Vice AttorneyDavid WallaceDefendant/Petitioner
Michael N. Sheetz, Esquire Connor R. Cobean, Esquire Scott L. Cagan, Pro Hac Vice AttorneyTimothy StockdaleDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
11/19/2015 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by David Wallace, Timothy Stockdale^
11/19/2015 #2 Motion to exceed page limitation in memorandum of law in support of petition pursuant to G.L. c. 231, §118, par. 1, filed by David Wallace, Timothy Stockdale^
11/19/2015 #3 Motion to accept late filing fee for petition pursuant to G.L. c. 231, §118, par. 1, filed by David Wallace, Timothy Stockdale^
11/25/2015 #4 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Alere Inc & Arriva Medical LLC. ^
12/14/2015 #5 ORDER The petition seeks review of an order denying a motion to dismiss on grounds including lack of personal jurisdiction. The petitioner asks that the single justice vacate the order and remand it to the trial court with instructions for dismissal. Pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 15(c), ". . . a single justice may not dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or other proceeding." Although not requested here, a single justice may allow an interlocutory appeal or report an order to a panel of the court. Such relief is rarely granted, and the circumstances here do not warrant such relief. The respondents in their opposition assert that the petition is untimely, as the date of "entry" of the order from which review is sought is October 2, 2015, and the petition was filed on November 19, 2015, more than thirty days after October 2. If this is true the respondents are correct; however, a review of the trial court docket shows that the "docket date" of the order as "10/19/15" and the order "entered 10/2/15 and notices sent 10/2/15." The "entry" date is the date the clerk actually enters the action or order on the docket. See G.D. Matthews & Sons v. MSN Corp., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 570, 571-572 (1993). Assuming the petition is timely, upon review of the filings before this court, it is denied. (Katzmann, J.) *Notice/Attest/Leibensperger, J.