seal

Court Case Record Patricia E. Griffith & another vs. Operating Port Royal, Inc. & another 2011-J-0050 UID(deb0)


Patricia E. Griffith & another vs. Operating Port Royal, Inc. & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0050


 
Case Number2011-J-0050
Case TitlePatricia E. Griffith & another vs. Operating Port Royal, Inc. & another
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date02/08/2011
Close Date02/10/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
R. Alan Fryer, EsquirePatricia E. GriffithPlaintiff/Petitioner
R. Alan Fryer, EsquireCarroll P. GriffithPlaintiff/Petitioner
Joseph A. Seckler, EsquireOperating Port Royal, Inc.Defendant/Respondent
Joseph A. Seckler, EsquireGary L. CarlsonDefendant/Respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
02/08/2011 #1 PETITION pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, ยง 118 with attachments, filed by Patricia E. Griffith, & Carroll P. Griffith.
02/10/2011 #2 ORDER: The decision whether to grant a motion to amend a complaint is within the discretion of the motion judge, though such motions should be granted absent a good reason to deny them. The single justice will not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of that discretion absent clearly demonstrated prejudicial error. See, e.g., Symmons v. O'Keefe, 419 Mass. 288, 302 (1995); Resendes v. Boston Edison Co., 38 Mass. App. Ct. 344, 350 (1995). I discern no such error here. There was rational basis for the judge's determination that, in the circumstances, allowance of the amendment after the close of discovery, would be unfairly prejudicial to the defendants. Further, the denial of the motion to amend cannot be considered outcome determinative given the remaining claims on which the case can proceed. The petition is accordingly denied. (Lenk, J.). Notice/attest/Henry, J./image