1. General.
2. Appeals Court.
3. Supreme Judicial Court.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. General.
I have kept people up to date on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The best details can be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
Succinctly, the City of Cambridge is now facing a judgment slightly in excess of $6 million because judge and jury have found that Cambridge destroyed the life of a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The judge’s key opinion is very notable for its use of the word “reprehensible” with regard to the City of Cambridge.
On July 16, Cambridge filed appeal in the Appeals Court. That created a time limit of August 25, 2010 for Cambridge to file its appellate brief explaining why it is appealing.
The case number in Appeals Court is 2010-P-1240.
There has been action in Appeals Court and in the Supreme Judicial Court.
2. Appeals Court.
On August 18, 2010, Cambridge filed a motion that it be allowed to file a principal brief in excess of 50 pages.
That should stay the August 25, 2010 due date for their brief.
3. Supreme Judicial Court.
On August 5, 2010, Cambridge filed an application for Direct Appellate Review with the Supreme Judicial Court.
On August 16, 2010, Ms. Monteiro filed an “OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application.”
I do not have access to more than the names of the papers.
The case number is DAR-19067.
A filing of this sort by the appealing party (Cambridge) normally would be based on a contention that the case is going to wind up in the SJC anyway, so why waste time at the Appeals Court.
It is interesting that Ms. Monteiro filed a “limited” opposition. My guess as to what that means comes from whole cloth.
If Monteiro’s lawyers think that the case is going to wind up in the SJC no matter, that language would mean that Ms. Monteiro, in order to get her position into the court, has to file a paper called an “opposition,” and that the “limited” nature of the “opposition” probably comes from a situation in which Ms. Monteiro really agrees with Direct Appellate Review, and the paper is filed because there is something that Ms. Monteiro wants to put on record.
Clearly, if the case WILL wind up in front of the SJC, it is to both parties’ benefit to skip the Appeals Court.
However, I am not at all certain that it would be responsible for the City to file yet another appeal. I have real questions as to whether the Appeals Court appeal has value. Under this analysis, it could be the position of Ms. Monteiro that the City of Cambridge is going to chase a silly appeal to the SJC.
We will see. We will see.
