Bob La Trémouille reports:
Today, June 14, 2010, Cambridge filed notice of appeal in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. We have given quite a few reports on this case. The most important case paper can be accessed from the link in the upper right corner which reads: “Monteiro Judge on Cambridge: Reprehensible.”
The following is the notice of appeal from the on line docket. The on line docket uses software which destroyed paragraphing. ALL the below paragraphing is my best guess. To the extent extraneous numbers appear in my quote, please let me know about them. They would be line numbers that I missed in the edit.
Please also note that the software loses a lot of punctuation / emphasis. I have made no attempt to correct these errors.
It is highly likely that the below quote is just the title. There may have been other matters filed as part of the document.
*******
Defendant City of Cambridge's (second renewed) notice of appeal from:
(1) Corrected Amended Final Judgment on Jury Verdict entered on June 4, 2010;
(2) Amended Order of Judgment entered on May 20, 2010;
(3) Memorandum and Order on defendant's motion for reconsideration entered on May 20, 2010;
(4) Memorandum and Order on plaintiff's Petition for award of fees and costs entered on May 20, 2010;
(5) Memorandum and Order on plaintiff's motion to clarify, alter and 8 amend the court's judgment on jury verdicts entered on May 20, 2010, including but not limited to reversal to the previous award of costs 10 to defendant relating to the first trial;
(6) Judgment on jury verdicts entered on June 2, 2009;
(7) Order entered on May 8, 2009 denying the defendant's post-trial motions, including without limitation:
(a) defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict;
(b) Defendant's motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for a remittitur, and
(c) motoin to supplement the record on appeal.
(8) Order from the Bench at the Charge Conference in May, 2008, rejecting defendant's proposed retaliation charge under McCormack v. Boston Edison, and other objections as preserved;
(9) Order denying defendant City of Cambridge's Motion for reconsideration of decision and order on post-trial motions;
(10) Order from the bench denying defendant City of Cambridge's motion for directed verdict dated May 20, 2008;
(11) order from the bench of May 13, 2008 denying defendant's motion for mistrial in connection with the admission of so-called "comparator" evidence;
(12) Implicit orders refusing to consider the defendant's submission of Statement of Authority regarding Everett v. The 357 Corp., filed on April 22, 2009, while giving full consideration to plaintiff's co-called statement of supplemental Authority regarding Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed on December 28, 2009;
(13) Order denying defendant's motion for directed verdict dated February 22, 2005 (first trial);
(14) Order denying defendant's motion for directed verdict and/or reconsideration of the denial of motion for directed verdict dated June 2, 2005, including but not limited to the denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a rule 64 Report (first trial);
(15) order denying motion of defendant City of Cambridge for entry of partial judgment dated August 4, 2005 (first trial); and
(16) January 2005 order from the bench allowing plaintiff Monteiro's motion to amend complaint filed on December 14, 2004 (first trial).
