Court Case Record J. DOUGLAS LIBASSI vs. EDWARD MORGAN & another 2014-P-0049 UID(5463)

J. DOUGLAS LIBASSI vs. EDWARD MORGAN & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2014-P-0049

Case Number2014-P-0049
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk Probate & Family
CourtSuffolk Probate & Family
Court Address
Field Date06/08/1999
Close Date04/01/2015


J. Douglas LiBassiPro Se Plaintiff/Appellant
James E. Small, Jr., EsquireEdward MorganDefendant/Appellee
Naomi Shelton, EsquireLillian Mary Mor O'NealDefendant/Appellee
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
01/15/2014 #1 Entered.
01/15/2014 #2 Notice of entry sent.
01/17/2014 #3 Affidavit of Indigency (IMPOUNDED) and Motion to Waive entry fee and docket appeal or in the alternative to docket appeal and enlarge time to pay fee, filed by Lillian Mary Morgan O'Neal
01/27/2014 #4 Docketing Statement received from J. Douglas LiBassi.^
01/28/2014 #5 MOTION to strike Lillian O'Neal's motion to waive fee and docket appeal or in the alternative to docket appeal and enlarge time to pay fee, filed by J. Douglas LiBassi.
01/31/2014 #6 RE#2: No action necessary. This appeal arises from and pertains only to the Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of J. Douglas LiBassi in the trial court on 10/7/13. As the trial court assembly contains no reference to a similarly-timed Notice of Appeal filed by Lillian Mary Morgan O'Neal, she is not considered an cross-appellant, and has no obligation to pay a docketing fee or enter an appeal as an appellee. See M.R.A.P. 10(a)(1). *Notice.
01/31/2014 #7 RE#4: See action on Paper #2. *Notice.
02/20/2014 #8 MOTION to extend brief & appendix due date, filed by J. Douglas LiBassi.
02/21/2014 #9 RE#5: Allowed to 04/30/2014. Notice sent.
04/30/2014 #10 Notice to J. Douglas LiBassi that brief is non-conforming for the reasons indicated on the checklist: #15, 16, 17 & 22. The party has until 05/15/2014 to file, and re-serve upon all parties, a conforming brief and appendix or a motion to accept nonconforming brief and appendix.
05/14/2014 #11 SERVICE of brief & appendix (1 vol) for Plaintiff/Appellant J. Douglas LiBassi
06/11/2014 #12 MOTION to extend brief due date of Edward Morgan.
06/11/2014 #13 RE#8: Allowed to 07/13/2014. Notice sent.
06/17/2014 #14 OPPOSITION to paper #8, filed by J. Douglas LiBassi.
06/18/2014 Motion to accept brief and docket appellee's late brief, filed by Lillian Mary Morgan O'Neal.
06/19/2014 RE#10: Allowed and accepted for filing this date. *Notice.
06/19/2014 SERVICE of brief for Defendant/Appellee Lillian Mary Morgan O'Neal.
06/23/2014 RE#9: To the extent Appellant seeks to correct the caption, said motion is denied without prejudice to renewal in the trial court. M.R.A.P. 10(a)(3). *Notice.
07/03/2014 SERVICE of reply brief for Plaintiff/Appellant J. Douglas LiBassi.
07/16/2014 SERVICE of brief for Defendant/Appellee Edward Morgan.
12/11/2014 Under consideration by Panel. (Kafker, J., Grainger, J., Agnes, J.).
04/01/2015 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The pro se plaintiff, J. Douglas LiBassi, appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss Lillian O'Neal's appeal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 10(c), as amended, 417 Mass. 1602 (1994).[2] The denial of LiBassi's rule 10(c) motion, however, is "neither an interlocutory nor final decree from which an appeal would lie." Medlinsky v. Premium Cut Beef Co., 320 Mass. 22, 28 (1946). See MacNeil Bros. Co. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc., 334 Mass. 706, 706 (1956). Accordingly, LiBassi's claim is not properly before this court, and should be dismissed. [3]. (Kafker, Grainger & Agnes, JJ.). [4] *Notice/Attest. Footnotes 1. Edward Morgan 2. We need not address Morgan's claims because his brief fails to rise to the level of adequate appellate argument. Mass.R.A.P. 16(b), as appearing in 411 Mass. 1602 (1992). See Zora v. State Ethics Commn., 415 Mass. 640, 642 n.3 (1993). 3. Even were we to assume that LiBassi's claim was properly before us, his failure to reproduce the transcript of the hearing on his rule 10(c) motion precludes appellate review. See Doten v. Doten, 395 Mass. 135, 139 (1985) ("If the defendant intended to base his appeal on anything that transpired during those hearings, he was required to order a transcript"). Because the judge did not make written findings, the hearing transcript was necessary to determine whether the judge abused his discretion in denying LiBassi's rule 10(c) motion. See Shawmut Community Bank, N.A. v. Zagami, 411 Mass. 807, 811-812 (1992). 4. The panelists are listed in order of seniority.