seal

Court Case Record DENNIS FARMER vs. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION & others 2013-J-0220 UID(b170)


DENNIS FARMER vs. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-J-0220


 
Case Number2013-J-0220
Case TitleDENNIS FARMER vs. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date06/07/2013
Close Date10/21/2013

Parties

CounselNameType
James P. Long, EsquireDennis FarmerPlaintiff/Respondent
Stephen C. Reilly, EsquireFederal National Mortgage AssociDefendant
Stephen C. Reilly, EsquireCountrywide Home Loans, Inc.Defendant
Stephen C. Reilly, EsquireMortgage Electronic RegistrationDefendant
Stephen C. Reilly, EsquireBank of America, N.A.Defendant
Stephen C. Reilly, EsquireBAC Home Loans Serving, LPDefendant
Robert M. Mendillo, EsquireHarmon Law Offices, P.C.Defendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
06/07/2013 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Harmon Law Offices, P.C.
06/11/2013 #2 RE#1: Action on the within is stayed pending trial court action on the motion for reconsideration. Status report to be filed on or before 7/11/13. *Notice/Attest/Fahey, J.
07/10/2013 #3 Status report, filed by Harmon Law Offices, P.C.^
07/11/2013 #4 RE#2: Action on petition stayed to 8/9/13. Status report due then concerning motion for reconsideration. *Notice/Attest/Fahey, J.
08/09/2013 #5 Status report, filed by Harmon Law Offices, P.C.^
08/09/2013 #6 RE#3: Appellate proceedings stayed to 9/9/13. Status report report due 9/9/13 concerning the status of the motion for reconsideration pending before the trial court. *Notice/Attest/Fahey, J.
08/19/2013 #7 Status report, filed by Harmon Law Offices, P.C.^
08/21/2013 #8 Copy of trial court judgement entered on 8/19/13, received from James P. Long.^
08/22/2013 #9 ORDER: The defendant, Harmon Law Offices, P.C., has filed a petition seeking interlocutory review, pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 118 (first para.), of orders entered by a Superior Court judge that (1) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, and (2) allowed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Action on the petition was stayed pending the outcome of a motion for reconsideration filed in the trial court. As that motion has been denied, the stay is vacated. To the extent that the defendant's petition seeks relief from the order denying its motion to dismiss, the petition is denied because the single justice is without authority to grant the relief requested, which would be outcome determinative. See Mass.R.A.P. 15(c). The defendant's petition further requests that the single justice grant it leave to take an interlocutory appeal. Leave to take an interlocutory appeal should be reserved for truly extraordinary and exceptional cases. See Long v. Wickett, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 380, 387-389 (2000) (discussing "the appellate courts' traditional abhorrence of piecemeal appellate review"). The defendant has not made a persuasive showing in this case for overriding the strong judicial policy against piecemeal interlocutory appeals. Accordingly, the request is denied. Finally, the defendant's petition requests the single justice to vacate the order entering partial summary judgment for the plaintiff. On or before September 4, 2013, the plaintiff may file a response to the defendant's request to vacate the order allowing his motion for partial summary judgment. Appellate proceedings stayed to September 4, 2013. (Vuono, J.) *Notice/Attest.
08/29/2013 #10 Response to and request for reconsideration in part of paper #6, filed by Harmon Law Offices, P.C^
09/05/2013 Response to Harmon's Petition, filed by Dennis Farmer.^
09/12/2013 Copy of transcript of 6/20/13 Housing Court hearing received from Robert M. Mendillo. ^
10/21/2013 ORDER: The defendant, Harmon Law Offices, P.C., filed a petition seeking interlocutory review, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first para.), of orders entered by a Superior Court judge that (1) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, and (2) allowed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. To the extent that the defendant's petition sought relief from the order denying its motion to dismiss, the petition was denied and the plaintiff was given the opportunity to file a response to the defendant's request that the single justice vacate the order entering partial summary judgment for the plaintiff. That response was filed on September 4, 2013. Upon consideration of the record, including the plaintiff's response, the petition is now denied in its entirety (Vuono, J.). Notice/attest/Fahey, J.