Bob La Trémouille Reports:
The following entry was added to the docket of Monteiro v. Cambridge on September 17, 2009:
Because of oddities in the application used in the docket, the docket loses all paragraphing in its entries.
I have inserted paragraphing to make the communication more readable. The paragraphing is my interpretation and does not claim to be that included in the original writing.
Joan A. Lukey is the attorney for the City of Cambridge.
Rule 59, mentioned in the last paragraph concerns “New Trials: Amendment of Judgments.” Since the plaintiff’s motion very clearly concerns amendment of judgment, that comes as no surprise. I have been informed that the motion was filed by the plaintiff because the plaintiff believes that the interest awarded, currently about half a million dollars, is too small.
The final sentence admits that the notice of appeal filed by Cambridge was not proper and thus is void.
**************
Court received a letter from attorney Joan A Lukey:
*******
On September 10,2009, I sent a letter attaching the Transcripts for May 7, 2008 and May 8, 2008, and certified, because I believed it to be true, that the entire trial transcipt was complete.
As it turns out, the trial transcripts are complete, but the transcript for one motion hearing in 2005 relating to the first trial, and the transcript for the post trial motion hearing in 2008, both requested by Plaintiff, apparently are not complete. The transcript for the two day motion hearing in January of 2005, also requested by Plaintiff, is in hand but not yet filed.
Please accept my apologies for the mistake and allow me to formally retract the certification. We shall file these motion-hearing transcripts as soon as they are ready, which we believe will be shortly.
We understand that the trial judge is treating Plaintiff's motion currently under advisement as a Rule 59 motion, not a motion for reconsideration. Hence, we shall be refilling our Notice of Appeal once the Judge has ruled.
