seal

Court Case Record R.E. HILL & COMPANY, INC. vs. NAZING COURT ASSOCIATES, INC. 2013-P-1573 UID(2705)


R.E. HILL & COMPANY, INC. vs. NAZING COURT ASSOCIATES, INC. Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-P-1573


 
Case Number2013-P-1573
Case TitleR.E. HILL & COMPANY, INC. vs. NAZING COURT ASSOCIATES, INC.
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date05/23/2011
Close Date06/03/2014

Parties

CounselNameType
Paul K. Flavin, Esquire Brendan Pitts, EsquireR.E. Hill & Company, Inc.Plaintiff/Appellee
Denzil D. McKenzie, EsquireNazing Court Associates, Inc.Defendant/Appellant
James Edward Clancy, EsquireAcademic & Behavioral Clinic, InThird-party Defendant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/04/2013 #1 Entered.
10/04/2013 #2 Notice of entry sent.
10/22/2013 #3 Docketing Statement received from Nazing Court Associates, Inc. ^
11/13/2013 #4 SERVICE of brief & appendix (1 vol) for Defendant/Appellant Nazing Court Associates, Inc.
12/11/2013 #5 SERVICE of brief for Plaintiff/Appellee R.E. Hill & Company, Inc
12/26/2013 #6 SERVICE of reply brief for Defendant/Appellant Nazing Court Associates, Inc..
02/11/2014 #7 Notice sent seeking information on unavailability for oral argument in April 2014
02/14/2014 #8 Letter of Denzil D. McKenzie, Esquire unavailable for oral argument 4/2, 4/10.
03/07/2014 #9 Notice sent seeking information on unavailability for oral argument in May 2014
04/03/2014 Notice of 05/08/2014, 9:30 AM argument at John Adams Courthouse, Courtroom 4 (a4) sent.
05/07/2014 Notice of appearance of Brendan Pitts for R.E. Hill & Company, Inc.
05/08/2014 Oral argument held. (Kantrowitz, J., Fecteau, J., Carhart, J.).
06/03/2014 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The defendant, Nazing Court Associates, Inc. (Nazing), appeals from an order allowing summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, R.E. Hill & Company, Inc. (Hill), on a breach of contract claim. On appeal, Nazing argues that it submitted sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the contract was obtained through fraud. Hill moved for summary judgment on all five counts listed in its complaint. [1] The judge below granted summary judgment only as to count II, breach of contract. The record does not indicate the status of the remaining counts. Nor does the record indicate compliance with Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 821 (1974), which would have enabled us to address the merits. As such, it appears that the matter before us is incomplete, and thus interlocutory. This court maintains a "bedrock policy against premature and piecemeal appeals." Long v. Wickett, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 380, 388 (2000). "[N]o appeal can be taken from a trial judge's partial 'judgment' on a claim prior to entry of a final judgment disposing of all claims against all parties to the action." Morrissey v. New England Deaconess Assn.-- Abundant Life Communities, Inc., 458 Mass. 580, 594 (2010). As we are without jurisdiction to consider the matter, which appears meritless in any event, the appeal must be dismissed as premature. (Kantrowitz, Fecteau & Carhart, JJ.). *Notice/Attest. Footnote 1. Count I, reach and apply; count II, breach of contract; count III, quantum meruit; count IV, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings; and count V, violation of G. L. c. 93A.