Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Action this Week.
2. Evaluation.
3. Brief summary of the Record.
4. Prior Judge’s order in response to City’s Motion for Verdict for Defense.
1. Action this Week.
The following entries were placed on the docket during the past week in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Division Superior Court Civil Action MICV2001-02737:
I do not have access to papers in the case. I solely have access to the docket which is very abbreviated summaries of papers filed and similar actions.
February 25, 2009:
1 Pleading, Copy of 3 Transcripts, returned to Joan A Lukey, Esq.:
2 court does not except copies.
Joan A. Lukey is the City of Cambridge’s lawyer.
February 26, 2009:
1 Per Judge MacLeod-Mancuso's direction, clerk requested copies of
2 transcripts from Tracy E. Brown, Assistant to Defense Counsel, Joan
3 Lukey to be delivered to the Court. Copies of transcripts recevied
4 from: May 5, 2008, May 20, 2008, May 21, 2008 and transcript of
5 portions of testimony of Robert Healey (Pages 86-92)
2. Evaluation.
My guesstimate of the situation is that the longer the judge sits on this case, the more likely she is to come up with an order firing the Cambridge City Manager with loss of pension.
The actions of the City of Cambridge look to me like acts of desperation as a result of the city’s attorney agreeing with me in my guesstimate.
The judge is extending Cambridge every courtesy, thus documenting the judge's reasonableness toward the City of Cambridge.
3. Brief summary of the Record.
In May 2008, a jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had deliberately destroyed the life of a black woman Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The jury ordered $1.1 million or so real damages plus $3.5 million penal damages.
Cambridge moved for verdict for the defendant notwithstanding the jury verdict or for reduction in damages.
In June a hearing was conducted on the motion. There were post hearing filings apparently stemming from the hearing, the last of which was in August.
In November, first the plaintiff’s attorney, then the defendants attorney filed letters with the court. I presume these were reminders to the court that the court’s decision was awaited on the post trial motions.
4. Prior Judge’s order in response to City’s Motion for Verdict for Defense.
On June 2, 2005, the following was placed on the docket by Judge Catherine A. White, the judge in the first trial:
No. Docket Entry:
1 ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict and/or
2 Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict:
3 Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a
4 long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of
5 discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However,
6 there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably
7 be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this
8 Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time
9 makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable. Plaintiff's statement
10 of supplemental authority, forwarded to the Court on April 21, 2005
11 does not persuade the Court to change its earlier rulings.
12 Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's earlier denial of
13 a motion for directed verdict on this issue is denied, and the motion
14 for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence remains
15 denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a) report to the Appeals
16 Court is also denied. ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed
17 Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed
18 Verdict: Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that,
19 admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial
20 complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate
21 her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that
22 could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events.
23 Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the
24 passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable.
25 Plaintiff's statement of supplemental authority, forwarded to the
26 Court on April 21, 2005 does not persuade the Court to change its
27 earlier rulings. Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's
28 earlier denial of a motion for directed verdict on this issue is
29 denied, and the motion for directed verdict at the close of all of
30 the evidence remains denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a)
31 report to the Appeals Court is also denied. Dated: May 27, 2005
32 (White, Catherine A.) Justice of the Superior Court. Dated: May 27,
33 2005
