Court Case Record JAMES F. DEVER vs. OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. 2010-J-0574 UID(47c8)

JAMES F. DEVER vs. OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2010-J-0574

Case Number2010-J-0574
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date12/20/2010
Close Date01/05/2011


Benjamin D. Stevenson, EsquireJames F. DeverPlaintiff/Respondent
Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esquire , EsquireOppenheimer & Co., Inc.Defendant/Petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
12/20/2010 #1 MOTION for stay under MRAP 6(A) w/attach, filed by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
12/20/2010 #2 ORDER: "The court ALLOWS the emergency motion of the defendant, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., to restrain the release of the arbitration documents (the "OPCO documents") referenced in its Motion for Temporary Relief and Impoundment in the Superior Court. These documents shall remain impounded until further action by the single justice. The reason for the present ruling and order is practical expediency and not an assessment of the ultimate merits of impoundment. I presently have no specific information about the substance of the documents at issue nor about the legal standards applicable to them. However, unless I preserve the status quo for the moment, an interlocutory petition to the single justice pursuant to G. L. c. 231, ยง 118, first paragraph, will immediately become futile and moot. To preserve the purpose and potential utility of that statutory procedure, the release of the disputed documents can afford at least a brief delay. Finally, I understand that additional discussion between the parties and further rulings by the Superior Court may specifically identify and substantially reduce the number of documents at issue and arguments related to them. By the Court (Sikora, J.) *Notice/Attest/Image.
12/24/2010 #3 Motion to dissolve stay, filed by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
12/28/2010 #4 Letter from Stuart D. Meissner re: Mr. Dever intends to file an opposition to motion to stay filed by defendant's counsel.
12/31/2010 #5 Letter from Stuart D. Meissner re: Mr. Dever intends to respond to Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.'s December 23, 2010 Motion to Dissolve Stay.
12/31/2010 #6 Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's Motion To Dissolve Stay, filed by James F. Dever.
01/04/2011 #7 Motion for permission to submit reply memorandum in further support of defendant's motion to dissolve stay, filed by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
01/05/2011 #8 ORDER CONCERNING (1) ALL PARTIES' MOTIONS TO DISSOLVE STAY; and (2) PLAINTIFF DEVER'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS: The court has considered the motion of defendant Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., to dissolve the stay granted on December 22, 2010, restraining the release of the two specified "OPCO documents" (motion docketed in this court on December 24, 2010). The court has considered also plaintiff Dever's response to that motion (response docketed in this court on December 31, 2010). Both sides now agree to the dissolution of the stay (Oppenheimer motion at p.1; Dever response at p. 17). I hereby DISSOLVE the stay.By his response plaintiff Dever requests the imposition of sanctions upon Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., and its "relevant counsel for the numerous misrepresentations made to this Court [the single justice of the Appeals Court] which we respectfully submit, has misled this Court as it has other Courts" (response at p. 17, prayer 2). After review of all pertinent papers in this court (including Oppenheimer's reply memorandum dated January 4, 2011), I DENY the request for sanctions. Upon the documents in this court, I am unable to determine the validity of the charges of misrepresentation and its consequences. As is often the case, the involvement of a single justice in interlocutory and urgent appeals from the trial courts is fleeting and fragmented. I do not possess the sense of certainty about alleged impropriety necessary for the unusual measure of sanctions against either counsel or client. At the same time, I deny the request for sanctions without prejudice to the freedom of the Superior Court judge with deeper knowledge and firmer grasp of the tactical reality of the litigation in the front line court. That judge remains free to consider any request for sanctions for improper motion practice under the standards of Psy-Ed Corporation v. Klein, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 110, 113-119 (2004). (Sikora, J.) *Notice/Attest/Image.