Court Case Record PSY-ED CORPORATION & another vs. STANLEY KLEIN & another 2012-J-0238

PSY-ED CORPORATION & another vs. STANLEY KLEIN & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0238

Case Number2012-J-0238
Case TitlePSY-ED CORPORATION & another vs. STANLEY KLEIN & another
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date06/29/2012
Close Date07/05/2012


Psy-Ed CorporationPlaintiff
Joseph Valenzano, Jr.Pro Se Plaintiff
George P. Field, EsquireStanley KleinDefendant/Respondent
Dahlia Rudavsky, EsquireKimberly SchiveDefendant/Respondent
David J. Paliotti, EsquireEP Global Communications, Inc.Other/petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
06/29/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, ยง 118 with attachments, filed by EP Global Communications, Inc.
07/05/2012 #2 RE#1: The petition must be, and hereby is, denied. The Single Justice is without authority to grant the relief requested, as it is outcome determinative in nature. See Mass. R. App. P. 15(c), ("a single justice may not dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or other proceeding"). (Wolohojian, J.). *Notice/Attest
07/06/2012 #3 Motion for reconsideration of denial, filed by EP Global Communications, Inc. ^
07/17/2012 #4 Opposition to paper #2, filed by Kimberly Schive.
07/18/2012 #5 RE#2: No action is taken at this time on EP Global Communication Inc.'s motion for reconsideration in light of Kimberly Schive's representation that the issue of joinder will be revisited by the trial court on July 27, 2012. After that hearing, the motion judge is to issue a memorandum explaining his or her analysis and reasoning on the issue of joinder. The parties are to file with this court that memorandum immediately after its issuance by the judge below. The parties may also submit additional memoranda of no more than five pages each within five business of the issuance of the judge's memorandum below. (Wolohojian, J.). *Notice/Attest/Wrenn, J.
10/17/2012 #6 Supplementary memorandum in opposition to the appeal, filed by Kimberly Schive. ^
10/17/2012 Supplemental memorandum in connection with petition, filed by EP Global Communications, Inc. ^
11/01/2012 Notice of change of address of Attorney George P. Field.
11/05/2012 RE#2: The motion for reconsideration is denied to the extent that it seeks relief from the Single Justice, because the Single Justice does not have the authority to grant the relief requested. The motion for reconsideration is also denied to the extent that it seeks interlocutory review by a full panel of this Court. "Interlocutory orders cannot be presented for appellate review, absent special authorization, until the entire case is ripe for review. This rule stems from the burdensome nature of piecemeal appellate review. For the same reasons, [the Supreme Judicial Court has] held that, although G. L. c. 231, s 118, authorizes appellate relief from interlocutory orders of the Superior Court, this statute does not entitle a litigant as a matter of right to review of an appellate order denying relief under G. L. c. 231, s 118, from such a Superior Court order." Cappadona v. Riverside 400 Function Room, Inc., 372 Mass. 167, 169 (1977) (citations omitted). Having carefully reviewed the record and the motion judge's thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum and order, I see nothing that would take this case outside the general rule disfavoring interlocutory appeals. It does not appear to me that the petitioner has demonstrated that waiting for appellate review until proceedings below are fully completed will permanently affect its substantive rights (Wolohojian, J.). *Notice.