Court Case Record BRIAN MOR & others vs. TONY ZHAO 2013-P-1540

BRIAN MOR & others vs. TONY ZHAO Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-P-1540

Case Number2013-P-1540
Case TitleBRIAN MOR & others vs. TONY ZHAO
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyQuincy District, NO
CourtQuincy District, NO
Court Address
Field Date04/26/2010
Close Date05/05/2014


Timothy H. White, Esquire Michael J. Traft, EsquireBrian MorPlaintiff/Appellee
Timothy H. White, Esquire Michael J. Traft, EsquireJennifer StacyPlaintiff/Appellee
Timothy H. White, Esquire Michael J. Traft, EsquireMathew StacyPlaintiff/Appellee
Dana Alan Curhan, EsquireTony ZhaoDefendant/Appellant
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
09/27/2013 #1 Entered.
09/27/2013 #2 Notice of entry sent.
10/22/2013 #3 SERVICE of 7-briefs & 7-appendices (1 vol), 2-trans (1 vol) for Defendant/Appellant Tony Zhao. -- Briefs & appendices have been discarded per paper #2 -- substituted briefs filed 11/15/13
10/22/2013 #4 Docketing Statement received from Tony Zhao. ^
11/15/2013 #5 Notice of change of address of Dana Alan Curhan, Esquire.
11/15/2013 #6 Motion for leave to file substitute brief and record appendix, filed by Tony Zhao
11/15/2013 #7 RE#5: Allowed. Briefs and appendices on file will be discarded. Notice.
11/15/2013 #8 SERVICE of substituted brief and appendix (1 vol) for Defendant/Appellant Tony Zhao.
12/16/2013 #9 SERVICE of brief for Plaintiffs/Appellees Brian Mor, Jennifer Stacy, Mathew Stacy
01/08/2014 #10 Notice of appearance of Michael J. Traft for Jennifer Stacy and others.
02/11/2014 #11 Notice sent seeking information on unavailability for oral argument in April 2014
03/06/2014 Notice of 04/09/2014, 9:30 AM argument at John Adams Courthouse, Courtroom 4 (a4) sent.
04/09/2014 Motion to vacate entry as premature, filed by Tony Zhao. @
04/09/2014 Oral argument held. (Vuono, J., Meade, J., Carhart, J.).
05/05/2014 RE#10: No action necessary in view of our order of dismissal of the appeal (Vuono, Meade & Carhart, JJ.). *Notice.
05/05/2014 ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The defendant landlord appeals a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court, which in large part affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff tenants. However, because the Appellate Division specifically remanded the matter to the District Court with directions for that court to make new damages assessments on two of the tenants' claims and to enter findings reassessing the award of attorney's fees, there exists no final decision and order of the Appellate Division which would permit an appeal to this court. G. L. c. 231, § 109. See Kitchen & Kutchin, Inc. v. Jarry Electronics, Ltd., 382 Mass. 689 (1981); Cassidy v. Newton, 386 Mass. 1002 (1982). To the extent all issues are not resolved on remand, any appeal will lie with the Appellate Division. G. L. c. 231, § 108. If the Appellate Division renders a final decision and order, any further appeal may proceed in this court. G. L. c. 231, § 109. Appeal dismissed (Vuono, Meade & Carhart, JJ.). Notice/attest/McGovern, J./Canavan, III, J.