seal

Court Case Record DAGMARA FRANKOWSKA & another vs. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL NETWORK & another 2011-J-0374 UID(988e)


DAGMARA FRANKOWSKA & another vs. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL NETWORK & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0374


 
Case Number2011-J-0374
Case TitleDAGMARA FRANKOWSKA & another vs. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL NETWORK & another
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date08/23/2011
Close Date08/30/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
Terence E. Coles, EsquireDagmara FrankowskaPlaintiff/Respondent
Terence E. Coles, EsquireTrustee of Bankruptcy Estate of Dagmara FraPlaintiff/Respondent
Brian H. Lamkin, EsquireCommonwealth Financial NetworkDefendant/Petitioner
Brian H. Lamkin, EsquireScott SolodDefendant/Petitioner
Thomas F. Maffei, EsquireJames AdelmanOther/respondent
Thomas F. Maffei, EsquireEllen RosenbergOther/respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/23/2011 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Commonwealth Financial Network and Scott Solod.
08/23/2011 #2 Request for oral argument on petition for interlocutory review, filed by Commonwealth Financial Network and Scott Solod.
08/23/2011 #3 RE#1: Action on the within is stayed pending trial court action on the motion for clarification of the order that is subject of this petition. Status report to be filed on or before 9/23/11. *Notice/Attest.
08/25/2011 #4 Status report, filed by Commonwealth Financial Network, & Scott Solod.
08/26/2011 #5 CD containing PDF copies of Appendix, Volumes I through IV, filed by Commonwealth Financial Network & Scott Solod.
08/30/2011 #6 Opposition to Petition with attached appendix, filed by Dagmara Frankowska.
08/30/2011 ORDER: The defendants bring a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., seeking reversal of an order denying a stay of proceedings in this matter, particularly proceedings on pending motions for sanctions against the defendants, pending the judge below ruling on their motion to recuse. "[T]o prevent unnecessary expenditures of judicial resources and resources of litigants, motions to recuse should be given expeditious consideration." Duro v. Duro, 392 Mass. 574, 578 n.7 (1984). The defendants' motion to recuse alleges that the judge is either actually biased against the defendants or, at the least, that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See S.J.C. Rule 3.09,Canon 3E(a)(1) (requiring disqualification when "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned"). If the judge were to conclude under the "simple and straightforward" two-part test applicable on a motion to recuse that she either is actually biased or that her impartiality might reasonably questioned, she would be required to recuse herself from the case altogether. See Parenteau v. Jacobson, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 103-104 (1992). In these circumstances, the judge should have ruled on the motion to recuse prior to proceeding to other aspects of this case. The petition therefore is allowed and further proceedings in the case stayed until the judge rules on the motion to recuse. (Rubin, J.) *Notice/Attest/Kern, J.