seal

Court Case Record JOHN GULLEDGE vs. LODGE CORPORATION 2016-J-0092 UID(f307)


JOHN GULLEDGE vs. LODGE CORPORATION Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2016-J-0092


 
Case Number2016-J-0092
Case TitleJOHN GULLEDGE vs. LODGE CORPORATION
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date03/01/2016
Close Date03/03/2016

Parties

CounselNameType
Elliot Beresen, Esquire Chester L. Tennyson, Jr., EsquireJohn GulledgePlaintiff/Respondent
Kevin M. Riordan, Esquire Ashley C. Healy, EsquireLodge CorporationDefendant/Petitioner
Bay State Concrete ConstructionOther/respondent
Sellew Contracting CompanyOther/respondent
Mary GulledgePro Se Other/respondent
Ruth GulledgeOther/respondent
Sheldon W. PrenovitzOther/respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
03/01/2016 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Lodge Corporation^
03/03/2016 ORDER: Before me is the petition of defendant Lodge Corporation pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, ¶ 1, for relief from an order of the Superior Court denying its motion for summary judgment as to Count III. The petitioner requests entry of summary judgment in their favor. That relief is beyond the authority of the single justice. See Mass. R.A.P. 15(c), 365 Mass. 860 (1974). In the alternative, the petitioner requests leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the order to a panel of this court. It has been the long-standing and consistently applied policy of our appellate courts - including our single justice sessions - to reject efforts to obtain piecemeal appellate review by a full panel of interlocutory matters except in rare and unusual circumstances, where a petitioner has shown his clear entitlement to such extraordinary relief by establishing that delay threatened permanently to impair substantive rights, or that the case implicates public interest considerations transcending the interests of the parties, or that the matter requires expedited final decision in order to advance the proper (as opposed to the merely convenient) administration of justice. See Kargman v. Superior Court, 371 Mass. 324, 329-330 (1976); Cappadona v. Riverside 400 Function Room, Inc., 372 Mass. 167, 169-170 (1977); Pollack v. Kelly, 372 Mass. 469, 470-471 (1977); Edwin R. Sage Co. v. Foley, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 20, 24-25 (1981). Upon review of the petition, the memorandum supporting it, and the record appendix submitted with it (including the written memorandum of decision of the motion judge), I conclude that the petitioner has failed convincingly to demonstrate that this is such a case, or that it will be unable to vindicate their rights fully by the normal course of appellate review following a final judgment. The petition accordingly is DENIED. (Meade, J.). Notice/Attest/Fishman, J.
03/14/2016 Returned Mail: Notice of order sent to Sheldon W. Prenovitz returned as not deliverable as addressed. Notice not resent as no current address has been provided.