Court Case Record O.M. FINANCIAL ASSOCIATES, LLP & others vs. BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP & others 2011-J-0369

O.M. FINANCIAL ASSOCIATES, LLP & others vs. BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0369

Case Number2011-J-0369
Case TitleO.M. FINANCIAL ASSOCIATES, LLP & others vs. BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date08/18/2011
Close Date08/22/2011


Susan Hughes Banning, EsquireO.M. Financial Associates, LLPPlaintiff/Respondent
Susan Hughes Banning, EsquireO.M. Financial Group, LLCPlaintiff/Respondent
Susan Hughes Banning, EsquireCompensations Strategies Group IPlaintiff/Respondent
Susan Hughes Banning, EsquireD. Faris MaloufPlaintiff/Respondent
Susan Hughes Banning, EsquireWilliam O'ConnellPlaintiff/Respondent
Susan Hughes Banning, EsquireCynthia O'ConnellPlaintiff/Respondent
Jennifer Samsel Newman, EsquireBurns & Levinson, LLPDefendant/Petitioner
Jennifer Samsel Newman, EsquireAndrew F. CaplanDefendant/Petitioner
Jennifer Samsel Newman, EsquireLawrence P. MurrayDefendant/Petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/18/2011 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Burns & Levinson, LLP, Andrew F. Caplan, & Lawrence P. Murray.
08/22/2011 #2 ORDER: Defendant Burns & Levinson seeks interlocutory relief, pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 118, first par., from a Superior Court order denying its motion to amend its counterclaim to add a count seeking a declaratory judgment as to its confidentiality obligations under a 2007 settlement agreement. While a judge generally has broad discretion in ruling on a motion to amend, under Mass. R.Civ.P. 15(a) a motion should be granted "unless there appears some good reason for denying the motion." See Hubert v. Melrose-Wakefield Hospital Assn., 40 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 175 (1996). After review, I find that the judge below did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion. The petition is therefore denied. (Rubin, J.) *Notice/Attest/Lauriat, J.