seal

Court Case Record William S. Carden vs. John Ferreira & others 2010-J-0580 UID(fcee)


William S. Carden vs. John Ferreira & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2010-J-0580


 
Case Number2010-J-0580
Case TitleWilliam S. Carden vs. John Ferreira & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyBristol
CourtBristol Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date12/22/2010
Close Date12/24/2010

Parties

CounselNameType
Philip N. Beauregard, EsquireWilliam S. CardenPlaintiff/Respondent
John E. Zajac, EsquireJohn FerreiraDefendant/Petitioner
John E. Zajac, EsquireGilbert LopesDefendant/Petitioner
John E. Zajac, EsquirePaul BowenDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
12/22/2010 #1 PETITION purs to GLc 231, s. 118 w/attach, filed by John Ferreira, Gilbert Lopes and Paul Bowen.
12/24/2010 #2 ORDER: The Court DENIES the petition for interlocutory relief from the rulings and orders of the Superior Court judge quashing the petitioner/defendants' late filed motion for summary judgment. Under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first paragraph, the appellate court reviews the orders of the trial courts for clear error of law or abuse of discretion. Aspinall v. Phillip Morris, Co., Inc., 442 Mass. 381, 390 (2004); Jet-Line Services, Inc. v. Board of Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 646 (1988); Manfrates v. Lawrence Limited Partnership, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 409, 412 (1996). Here no issue of law is involved. I cannot conclude that the enforcement of a deadline, especially one for the presentation of the considerable work presented by a summary judgment motion, constitutes an abuse of discretion. (Sikora, J.) *Notice/Attest/Image.
12/24/2010 #3 CORRECTED ORDER: The Court DENIES the petition for interlocutory relief from the rulings and orders of the Superior Court judge quashing the petitioner/defendants' late filed motion for summary judgment. Under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first paragraph, the appellate court reviews the orders of the trial courts for clear error of law or abuse of discretion. Aspinall v. Phillip Morris, Co., Inc., 442 Mass. 381, 390 (2004); Jet-Line Services, Inc. v. Board of Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 646 (1988); Manfrates v. Lawrence Limited Partnership, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 409, 412 (1996). Here no issue of law is involved. I cannot conclude that the enforcement of a deadline, especially one for the presentation of the considerable work presented by a summary judgment motion, constitutes an abuse of discretion. (Sikora, J.) *Notice/Attest/Image.