Court Case Record EDWARD JONES vs. HRONES, GARRITY & HEDGES & others 2011-J-0479

EDWARD JONES vs. HRONES, GARRITY & HEDGES & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0479

Case Number2011-J-0479
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date11/07/2011
Close Date11/07/2011


Edward JonesPro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner
Hrones, Garrity & HedgesDefendant/Respondent
Stephen HronesPro Se Defendant/Respondent
Stephen J. Duggan, EsquirePaul J. GarrityDefendant/Respondent
Jessica HedgesDefendant/Respondent
Michael TumposkyDefendant/Respondent
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
11/07/2011 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 and stay with attachments, filed by Edward Jones.
11/07/2011 #2 RE#1: Putting aside the question of indigency, the petition is entered this date without fee. However, the petition must be denied as untimely, since it was not filed within thirty days of the orders that were entered on September 23, 2011, and October 5, 2011. See G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.). (Hanlon, J.) *Notice/Attest.
11/16/2011 #3 Motion to void judgment and reconsideration to interlocutory appeal judgment, filed by Edward Jones.
11/28/2011 ORDER: The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition, filed November 11, 2011, pursuant to G.L. c. 231, §118 (first para.), is allowed. Upon reconsideration, however, the motion is denied. The plaintiff's petition, which sought review of orders entered on September 23, 2011, and October 5, 2011, was received by this court on November 7, 2011, beyond the boundaries of the thirty-day limit imposed under G.L. c. 231, §118. The single justice has no authority to enlarge the thirty-day limit, and the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll or enlarge the thirty-day period set forth in G.L. c. 231, §118 (first para.). See McGrath v. McGrath, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 670, 671 (2006). Moreover, the plaintiff's attempt to anchor the filing of his interlocutory petition to the denial, on October 5, 2011, of his motion for reconsideration is misguided. See Id. Finally, to the extent that plaintiff relies on the outcome of Commonwealth v. Hartsgrove, 407 Mass. 441 (1990) to suggest that his late filing should be excused because of his incarceration and the mailbox rule, such reliance is misplaced. In Hartsgrove, the Supreme Judicial Court considered whether it had the authority to enlarge a deadline dictated by Mass. R. A. P. 4. In contrast, the present case concerns a statutory deadline which this court has no authority to enlarge. Accordingly, the court's order of November 7, 2011, denying the plaintiff's petition for the reason that it was not timely filed, pursuant to G.L. c. 231, §118, is to stand. (Hanlon, J.) *Notice/Attest. footnote: (1) Attorneys Stephen Hrones, Paul J. Garity, Jessica Hedges, and Michael Tumposky.