Court Case Record NELSON BROTHERS & others vs. MOUNTAIN VIEW MHC LLC & another 2013-J-0351

NELSON BROTHERS & others vs. MOUNTAIN VIEW MHC LLC & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-J-0351

Case Number2013-J-0351
Case TitleNELSON BROTHERS & others vs. MOUNTAIN VIEW MHC LLC & another
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyHampden Cty Housing Ct
CourtHampden Cty Housing Ct
Court Address
Field Date08/15/2013
Close Date08/22/2013


Thomas P. Zito, EsquireNelson BrothersPlaintiff/Respondent
Thomas P. Zito, EsquireDiane CorlissPlaintiff/Respondent
Thomas P. Zito, EsquireRonald CorlissPlaintiff/Respondent
Thomas P. Zito, EsquireMargo GatesPlaintiff/Respondent
Thomas P. Zito, EsquireJudith KrynickiPlaintiff/Respondent
Thomas P. Zito, EsquireAmy RandallPlaintiff/Respondent
Joseph E. Kelleher, III, EsquireMountain View MHC LLCDefendant/Petitioner
David J. Martel, EsquireTown of Ludlow Mobile Home Rent ControlDefendant
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/15/2013 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Mountain View MHC LLC^
08/22/2013 #2 ORDER: The petitioner, Mountain View MHC, LLC, seeks interlocutory review, pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 118 (first para.), of an order entered by a judge of the Housing Court that (1) denied its motion to dismiss, (2) granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, and (3) allowed the plaintiffs to appeal a decision of the Rent Control board dated February 4, 2010 under G. L. C. 231A. The petition is denied. To the extent that the petitioner seeks reversal of the order denying its motion to dismiss, the petition is denied because the single justice is without authority to grant the relief requested, which would be outcome determinative. See Mass.R.A.P. 15(c). The petition further requests that the single justice grant it leave to take an interlocutory appeal from the order of the Housing Court. Leave to take an interlocutory appeal should be reserved for truly extraordinary and exceptional cases. See Long v. Wickett, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 380, 387-389 (2000) (discussing "the appellate courts' traditional abhorrence of piecemeal appellate review"). The petitioner has not made a persuasive showing in this case for overriding the strong judicial policy against piecemeal interlocutory appeals. Thus, the request for leave to take an interlocutory appeal is denied. Upon careful review of the petition and supporting documentation, all relief requested in the petition is denied. (Vuono, J.) *Notice/Attest/Fein, J.