seal

Court Case Record EVLYN A SCHULTZ AKA LYN A. SCHULTZ vs. UNISPHERE TRAVEL LTD INC DBA COLPITTS WORLD TRAVEL & others 2013-J-0249 UID(c69a)


EVLYN A SCHULTZ AKA LYN A. SCHULTZ vs. UNISPHERE TRAVEL LTD INC DBA COLPITTS WORLD TRAVEL & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-J-0249


 
Case Number2013-J-0249
Case TitleEVLYN A SCHULTZ AKA LYN A. SCHULTZ vs. UNISPHERE TRAVEL LTD INC DBA COLPITTS WORLD TRAVEL & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date06/20/2013
Close Date06/24/2013

Parties

CounselNameType
Gordon N. Schultz, EsquireEvlyn A Schultz aka Lyn A. SchultzPlaintiff/Respondent
David G. Hanrahan, Esquire John G. Hofmann, EsquireUnisphere Travel Ltd Inc dba ColDefendant/Petitioner
David G. Hanrahan, Esquire John G. Hofmann, EsquireAlan KrenskyDefendant/Petitioner
David G. Hanrahan, Esquire John G. Hofmann, EsquireJeffrey BrownDefendant/Petitioner
David G. Hanrahan, Esquire John G. Hofmann, EsquireLouann CusaDefendant/Petitioner
David G. Hanrahan, Esquire John G. Hofmann, EsquireDenise HaleyDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
06/20/2013 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, ยง 118 with attachments, filed by Unisphere Travel Ltd Inc dba Colpitts World Travel, Alan Krensky, Jeffrey Brown, Louann Cusa, Denise Haley.^
06/24/2013 RE#1: Defendant petitioners seek review of an order of the trial court denying their motion for summary judgment. The petitioners ask that I "annul or vacate" the order and that I allow interlocutory review by a full panel of this court. Review before the single justice of interlocutory orders is limited. I may not issue any order dispositive of a case. Mass. R. App. P. 15 (c). Therefore, to the extent, if any, the petitioners seek reversal of the order denying summary judgment, their petition must be denied. I do have the authority to allow prior to final judgment the appeal to a full panel of this court of an interlocutory order. See, e.g., Cuna Mutal Ins. Co. v. Attorney General, 380 Mass. 539, 540 (1980). The bar for the entry of such exceptional relief is high, however, and the petitioners have not demonstrated either a sufficiently clear error or a sufficient need for obtaining an exception from the general rule allowing appeals only after final judgment. Petition denied. (Rubin, J.). *Notice/Attest/Murtagh, J.