seal

Court Case Record GARY ROTHKOPF vs. LCK REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC & others 2012-J-0379 UID(a640)


GARY ROTHKOPF vs. LCK REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0379


 
Case Number2012-J-0379
Case TitleGARY ROTHKOPF vs. LCK REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyNorfolk
CourtNorfolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date10/11/2012
Close Date10/17/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
Edward Foye, EsquireGary RothkopfPlaintiff/Respondent
LCK Realty Associates, LLCDefendant
Garo Hyannis, LLCDefendant
Route 495 Commerce Park, L.P.Defendant
Dana Alan Curhan, Esquire Keith P. Slattery, EsquireRobin RotkopfDefendant/Petitioner
Dana Alan Curhan, Esquire Keith P. Slattery, EsquireJon BovarnickDefendant/Petitioner
Dana Alan Curhan, Esquire Keith P. Slattery, EsquireJay BovarnickDefendant/Petitioner
Dana Alan Curhan, Esquire Keith P. Slattery, EsquireJeffrey BovarnickDefendant/Petitioner
David BovarnickDefendant
Elaine EpsteinThird-party defendant
Edward FoyeThird-party defendant
Elizabeth RobertsThird-party defendant
Todd & Weld, LLPThird-party defendant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/11/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Robin Rotkopf, Jon Bovarnick, Jay Bovarnick, & Jeffrey Bovarnick.
10/15/2012 #2 Motion to dismiss "Petition for Interlocutory Relief Pursuant to G.L.c. 231, §118" and MOTION for attorneys' fees, filed by Gary Rothkopf.^
10/17/2012 #3 RE#1 & 2 ORDER: On October 11, 2012, defendants Robin Rothkopf, Jon Bovarnick, and Jeffrey Bovarnick filed a petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.), seeking review of an order of the Norfolk Superior Court, dated August 14, 2012, in which the court denied the defendants' motion to quash the plaintiff's supboena duces tecum and for a protective order as to their personal and financial information. They also seek review of an order dated September 13, 2012, in which the court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration of the August 14, 2012 order. The defendants failed to file a timely § 118 petition for review of the trial court's August 14, 2012 order. The filing of a motion for reconsideration in the trial court does not toll or enlarge the thirty-day period set forth in G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.). See McGrath v. McGrath, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 670, 671 (2006). Moreover, the defendants have not established that their motion for reconsideration of the August 14, 2012 order raised any substantially new matter from that which was presented in the prior motion. Since the motion for reconsideration essentially seeks review of the first order, the petition as to both orders is denied as untimely. See id. at 671-672; Manousos v. Sarkis, 382 Mass. 317, 322-323 (1981). Mr. Rothkopf's request for attorneys' fees is denied. (Sullivan, J.). *Notice/Attest/Brady, J.