Bob reports:
1. Papers filed.
2. Analysis.
3. Summary.
It looks like there will probably be a final judgment issued by the judge for Malvina Monteiro on or about June 2.
1. Papers filed.
The judge issued the following order on Monday, May 18:
******
Motion (P#107) In light of this Court's decision on the defendant's
post-trial motions, the within motion is ALLOWED. Counsel are to
provide a proposed form of judgment for the Court within 7 days.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice). Notices mailed 5/18/2009
******
Paper 107 was filed by the Plaintiff at about the same time as the defendant's post trial motions.
It read:
Paper 107:
******
MOTION Of Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro Pursuant To Rule 54(b) For Entry
Of Final Judgment Against Defendant City Of Cambridge; and
Defendant's Opposition.
******
This action was taken in spite of the city (defendant) filing a notice of intent to seek reconsideration of the post trial motion order.
On May 19, 2009, the Defendant filed the following:
******
Defendant City of Cambridge's MOTION for Reconsideration of Decision
and Order on Post Trial Motions; Plaintiff, Monteiro's opposition to
deft's motion.
******
2. Analysis.
The reality is as follows:
There are three plaintiffs outstanding, Monteiro and two who have not had a trial yet.
Under the rules, UNLESS the judge orders otherwise, all action on a case officially is not done UNTIL all plaintiffs' complaints are resolved. The Monteiro complaint was the first to be heard. Thus, everything would normally be on hold until the other two plaintiffs complaints are tried.
The motion the judge just granted allows final judgment to Ms. Monteiro without waiting for the other two plaintiffs.
Thus, after the drafting exercise the judge calls for in her order, Ms. Monteiro will have a judgment in hand allowing her to COLLECT her judgment from the City of Cambridge (i.e., sell a couple of buildings if the city does not pay). That judgment will also allow the city to appeal the decision.
Rules are such that the plaintiff cannot get the appropriate paper to commence the collection process on the judgment until after the appeals period expires. Thus an appeal prevents collection on the judgment until the appeal is completed.
Prior to the Judge’s order, Cambridge posted notice that Cambridge will seek reconsideration of the ruling and order rejecting the city’s post-trial motions. The timing of the judge’s request for language allowed Cambridge to file its reconsideration motion with any plaintiff response attached to it before the judge is scheduled to issue her official separate Judgment.
Cambridge proceeded with filing the motion for reconsideration.
Since the actual separate judgment will not be issued until after receipt of the Cambridge reconsideration request, the judge has left herself room to change her mind in light of VERY persuasive language by Cambridge, while the judge is simultaneously moving forward the final judgment with relative speed.
3. Summary.
That motion for reconsideration had better be very persuasive if the city expects to prevail.
It would appear highly unlikely that the motion for reconsideration will be that persuasive.
June 2, give or take a few days, I anticipate final and separate judgment. That judgment will be followed by time for appeal. If Cambridge does not appeal, Cambridge had better pay or see some of its property sold at auction.
