seal

Court Case Record CHRISTOPHER P. LORETI vs. JOSEPH F. TULIMERI & others 2015-J-0374 UID(49db)


CHRISTOPHER P. LORETI vs. JOSEPH F. TULIMERI & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2015-J-0374


 
Case Number2015-J-0374
Case TitleCHRISTOPHER P. LORETI vs. JOSEPH F. TULIMERI & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date10/01/2015
Close Date10/26/2015

Parties

CounselNameType
Elizabeth M. Clague, EsquireChristopher P. LoretiPlaintiff/Petitioner
John J. Davis, EsquireJoseph F. TulimeriDefendant/Respondent
John J. Davis, EsquireJuliana RiceDefendant/Respondent
John J. Davis, EsquireOther Unnamed Em ArlingtonDefendant/Respondent
John J. Davis, EsquireTown of ArlingtonDefendant/Respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/01/2015 #1 Motion to docket appeal late, filed by Christopher P. Loreti^
10/01/2015 #2 Memo: $300.00 entry fee for panel appeal with single justice file.
10/05/2015 #3 RE#1: Accepting counsel's representation that she received the notice of assembly in the underlying matter on September 12, 2015, under Mass.R.A.P. 10(a), the fee to enter the plaintiff's appeal was due to be paid on or before September 22, 2015. The clerk did not receive payment until September 25, 2015. Mass.R.A.P. 14(c), regarding time limits that are triggered by service of a paper by mail, does not apply to Rule 10(a). Plaintiff's motion to docket late is denied without prejudice to refiling, on or before October 15, 2015, a new motion accompanied by a supporting affidavit or memorandum showing (1) good cause and (2) "that the petitioning party has a case meritorious or substantial in the sense of presenting a question of law deserving judicial investigation and discussion." Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 377, 379 (1975). The entry fee received by the clerk's office on September 25, 2015, is returned to counsel this date. (Massing, J.). *Notice/attest/Wilkins, J.
10/06/2015 #4 Memo: Check #710 ($300.00) returned to Attorney Elizabeth M. Clague with notice RE#1.
10/15/2015 Motion for docketing of appeal pursuant to order dated October 6, 2015, filed by Christopher P. Loreti.
10/19/2015 Opposition to paper #2, filed by Town of Arlington, Joseph F. Tulimeri, Juliana Rice^
10/26/2015 ORDER: Upon consideration of the plaintiff's "Motion for Docketing of Appeal Pursuant to Order dated October 6, 2015," and the defendants' opposition, treating the motion as a motion to docket the appeal late, the motion is allowed. As cause for docketing the appeal three days late, plaintiff's counsel continues to rely erroneously on Mass.R.App.P. 14(c). [1] Nonetheless, dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal would be a disproportionate sanction for an error of his counsel resulting in only three days' delay and no prejudice to the defendants. As to whether the plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b) involves "meritorious" issues as that term is broadly defined in Tisei v. Building Inspector of Middleborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 379 (1975), the plaintiff's claims are not unworthy of presentation to a panel of this court. Accordingly, as counsel has submitted the $300 filing fee, the appeal is entered this date as 15-P-1440. (Massing, J.). *Notice/Attest/Wilkins, J. Footnote 1. Rule 14(c) applies only to acts that are required to be done within time periods triggered by "service of a paper" by another party. Service of a paper by mail is deemed accomplished on the date it is mailed. Mass.R.A.P. 13(c). If a paper is served by mail, the other party gets three extra days to act because it does not actually receive the paper on the date the clock starts to tick. The ten-day deadline for docketing an appeal in a civil case, however, is triggered not by service of a paper, but by actual receipt of a paper, which starts the clock ticking. See Mass.R.A.P. 10(a)(1) (docketing fee must be paid "[w]ithin ten days after receiving from the clerk of the lower court notice of assembly of the record"). The appellant does not need or get extra time to account for mailing.