Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have been keeping folks up to date on the events in this case insofar as is possible strictly from the docket.
The reality is that, just looking at the docket, the situation looks decidedly strange.
On May 23, 2008, the second jury in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge presented its verdict. The Cambridge Chronicle has reported that the jury’s verdict found that Cambridge had harmed the plaintiff with damages exceeding $1 million because of Cambridge’s retaliation against the Black Female plaintiff for her filing a complaint of discrimination in violation of her civil rights. The jury further found that Cambridge should pay penal damages in the amount of $3.5 million.
This jury verdict, if it stands, could possibly be considered reason to fire the Cambridge City Manager.
On June 19, 2008, the judge conducted a hearing at which time, the plaintiff moved that judgment be entered in accordance with the jury verdict. The defendant, the City of Cambridge, sought a new trial or, in the alternative, reduction of damages.
On July 3, 2008, the City of Cambridge filed "Post Trial Submissions."
On July 13, 2008, the City of Cambridge filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal.
On July 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a response to Cambridge’s "Post Trial Submissions."
Now, on August 4, 2008, the City of Cambridge has filed a "MOTION to strike plff Monteiro’s memorandum in response to deft’s supplemental post-trial submission." Also noted as part of this filing is plaintiff’s opposition and a notice of filing under Superior Court Rule 9A which governs motion practice.
I do not know what is in the papers. They are on the judge’s desk. I have no knowledge of what was done in the trial. All I know is what is in the docket.
