Court Case Record SAMER GANDOR vs. ADAM C. LOWENSTEIN & another 2012-J-0010

SAMER GANDOR vs. ADAM C. LOWENSTEIN & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0010

Case Number2012-J-0010
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date01/05/2012
Close Date03/22/2012


Valeriano Diviacchi, EsquireSamer GandorPlaintiff/Respondent
Stephen J. Rodman, EsquireAdam C. LowensteinDefendant
George C. Rockas, EsquireShockett Law Offices LLCDefendant/Petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
01/05/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Shockett Law Offices LLC. ^
01/06/2012 #2 RE#1: The within is stayed pending the trial court's decision on petitioner/plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Status report due within 10 days of a decision or 2/6/12, whichever date is earlier. *Notice/Attest/Budd, J.
03/22/2012 #3 Letter from Attorney George C. Rockas re: status report.
03/22/2012 RE#2: The stay of appellate proceedings is vacated. *Notice.
03/22/2012 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The underlying case is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiff seeks damages against his former counsel and Shocket Law Offices, LLC (apparently, counsel's present or former law firm) with regard to their handling of litigation involving a non-conforming deck at the plaintiff's home. The defendant law firm (Shocket) filed a motion to dismiss which a Superior Court judge granted in part and denied in part. Through a petition for interlocutory relief filed pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first para., Shocket now seeks review of the judge's decision (insofar as it denied the motion to dismiss). To the extent that Shocket requests that I order the judge to grant the motion to dismiss in full, that would be outcome-determinative relief that is beyond my authority as single justice to grant. See Mass. R. App. P. 15(c). To the extent that Shocket requests that I allow a plenary interlocutory appeal, it has provided virtually no reason for me to do so (despite the principle that interlocutory appeals are strongly disfavored). Shocket claims only that it "would suffer great prejudice if [the requested relief] was denied," and otherwise focuses on the merits of the motion to dismiss ruling. Because I have no reason even to consider allowing an appeal prior to entry of judgment, the petition is denied. So ordered. (Milkey, J.) *Notice/Attest/Budd, J.