seal

Court Case Record PACIFIC PACKAGING PRODUCTS, INC. vs. JAMES BARENBOIM & others 2011-J-0372 UID(1597)


PACIFIC PACKAGING PRODUCTS, INC. vs. JAMES BARENBOIM & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0372


 
Case Number2011-J-0372
Case TitlePACIFIC PACKAGING PRODUCTS, INC. vs. JAMES BARENBOIM & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date08/22/2011
Close Date08/30/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
Michael R. Gottfried, EsquirePacific Packaging Products, Inc.Plaintiff/Respondent
Amy R. Silverman, EsquireJames BarenboimDefendant/Petitioner
Amy R. Silverman, EsquireAndrew SlaterDefendant/Petitioner
Amy R. Silverman, EsquireSteven SlaterDefendant/Petitioner
Amy R. Silverman, EsquireDavid GuildDefendant/Petitioner
Amy R. Silverman, EsquirePackaging Partners, LLCDefendant/Petitioner
Amy R. Silverman, EsquireJ.M.S. PackagingDefendant/Petitioner
Patrick M. McAvoy, EsquireSandra ZeraschiDefendant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/22/2011 #1 Motion for stay under M.R.A.P. 6(a) with attachments, filed by James Barenboim, Andrew Slater, Steven Slater, David Guild, Packaging Partners, LLC, & J.M.S. Packaging.
08/26/2011 #2 Opposition to Motion to Stay, filed by James Barenboim, Andrew Slater, Steven Slater, David Guild, Packaging Partners, LLC, J.M.S. Packaging.
08/30/2011 #3 ORDER: Certain defendants bring a motion pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 6(a) to stay proceedings in the lower court or stay the order disqualifying counsel pending the appeal of the Superior Court's May 23, 2011 order disqualifying counsel.(2) These defendants have appealed the disqualification order on the grounds that "the Superior Court did not conduct the requisite 'searching review' before deciding to disqualify counsel." The requirements that a party must establish to obtain a stay pending appeal under Mass.R.A.P. 6(a) are the same factors required for a party to obtain an injunction. The motion must establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; (3) the harm likely to be suffered by the moving party if the stay is denied is greater than that to the non-moving party if the stay is allowed; and (4) any public interest is at stake. See Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609 (1980). Having reviewed the petition and the opposition, as well as the filings below, and having weighed all the factors relevant to establish entitlement to a stay, I have concluded that the moving defendants have not demonstrated that a stay is appropriate in these circumstances. The petition is therefore denied. (Rubin, J.) *Notice/Attest/Henry, J. footnotes: (1) Andrew Slater; Steven Slater; David Guild; Sandra Zeraschi ;Packaging Partners, LLC; and J.M.S. Packaging, Inc. (2) Defendant Sandra Zeraschi is represented by separate counsel and does not join in the motion or the appeal; she sought the disqualification order below.
09/02/2011 #4 Notice of change of address of Attorney Michael R. Gottfried.