seal

Court Case Record JAMES E. LUIPPOLD vs. DAG REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 2010-P-1501 UID(4431)


JAMES E. LUIPPOLD vs. DAG REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2010-P-1501


 
Case Number2010-P-1501
Case TitleJAMES E. LUIPPOLD vs. DAG REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyLand
CourtLand Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date06/15/2009
Close Date06/15/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
Michael J. Traft, Esquire John P. Rauseo, EsquireJames E. LuippoldPlaintiff/Appellee
Jeffrey B. Loeb, EsquireDAG Real Estate DevelopmentDefendant/Appellant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/26/2010 #1 Entered.
08/26/2010 #2 Notice of entry sent.
10/05/2010 #3 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant DAG Real Estate Development.
11/08/2010 #4 MOTION to extend brief due date of James E. Luippold.
11/08/2010 #5 RE#3: Extension to 11/24/2010 granted for filing of brief of James E. Luippold, Plaintiff/Appellee. Notice to counsel.
03/09/2011 #6 Notice of 04/11/2011, 1:00 PM argument at B. U. School of Law sent.
03/28/2011 #7 MOTION to extend brief due date of James E. Luippold.
03/29/2011 #8 RE#5 Referred to the panel designated to decide this appeal. *Notice
03/29/2011 #9 OPPOSITION to #5 filed by DAG Real Estate Development.
03/30/2011 RE#6 Referred to the panel designated to decide this appeal. *Notice
04/04/2011 Response to Opposition paper #6 filed by James E. Luippold.
04/04/2011 RE#7 Referred to the panel designated to decide this appeal. *Notice
04/07/2011 REVISED ACTION#5: With some reluctance, the appellee's motion is allowed. We are concerned in that the appellee's first motion to extend was allowed to 11/24/10, at which point no brief was forthcoming. Indeed the brief was not filed until 3/28/11, along with another motion to extend. As this sadly appears not to be an isolated course of behavior, counsel is on notice that any future requests for extensions of time will be carefully scrutinized, as will compliance with timely filing dates set in court orders, and that, in the future, any similar conduct by counsel in willfully ignoring filing dates set forth in court orders, such as occurred in this appeal, will result in sanctions being imposed upon counsel. We discern, of significance, that the appellant has not been prejudiced by the late filing. By the Court (Kantrowitz, Rubin & Carhart, JJ.) *Notice
04/07/2011 SERVICE of brief for Plaintiff/Appellee James E. Luippold.
04/11/2011 Oral argument held. (Kantrowitz, J., Rubin, J., Carhart, J.).
05/18/2011 RE#6 (Revised Action) No action required. Notice.
05/18/2011 RE#7 (Revised Action) No action required. Notice.
05/18/2011 Decision: Rule 1:28 Judgment affirmed (KN RU CT, JJ.). Notice. (See image on file.)
06/15/2011 RESCRIPT to Trial Court.