Stormo, Joan Et Al Vs. Clark, Peter T Et Al

General correspondence regarding Notice to Appeals Court regarding Defendant's Notice of Appeal

Endorsement on Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (#71.0): DENIED After hearing and upon review of all pleadings, the Court DENIES the defendant's motion for JNOV. The defendant has not satisfied his burden that "no rational view of the evidence supports a finding for the plaintiff." To the contrary there was ample evidence, some of it conflicting, upon which the jury deliberated its verdict. This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of a jury. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Notice of appeal filed. Applies To: Clark, Peter T (Defendant)

General correspondence regarding notice of filing of appeal sent to counsel.

General correspondence regarding Judge Buckley's decisions

Notice of appeal filed. Applies To: Stormo, Joan (Plaintiff)

Appeal: Statement of the Case on Appeal (Cover Sheet), by e-filing to the Appeals Court. Applies To: Clark, Peter T (Defendant)

Notice of assembly of record sent to Counsel

Notice of assembly of record sent to Counsel

Appeal: Statement of the Case on Appeal (Cover Sheet), by e-filing to the Appeals Court. Applies To: Stormo, Joan (Plaintiff)

General correspondence regarding Notice of Assembly of Plaintiff's Appeal sent to the Appeals Court

List of exhibits Jury Waived Trial on c. 93A Claims

Notice of docket entry received from Appeals Court Please take note that on January 31, 2020, the following entry was made on the docket of the above-referenced case: ORDER: As the defendant's appeal has been dismissed for failure to prosecute and plaintiff Joan Stormo was granted leave to late docket her appeal, this appeal is no longer a cross appeal. Joan Stormo is the appellant. Her brief and appendix is due on or before 02/19/2020.

Notice of docket entry received from Appeals Court Please take note that on January 16, 2020, the following entry was made on the docket of the above-referenced case: Notice of dismissal to Trial Court as to Peter R. Clark only: Standing Order Governing Dismissals for Lack of Prosecution

Notice of Entry of appeal received from the Appeals Court 2019-P-0641

General correspondence regarding Notice of Assembly sent to the Appeals Court

Notice to Clerk of the Appeals Court of Assembly of Record, by e-filing to the Appeals Court.

General correspondence regarding Notice of Assembly sent to the Appeals Court

Notice to Clerk of the Appeals Court of Assembly of Record, by e-filing to the Appeals Court.

ORDER: of Assignment Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Endorsement on Motion to File Late Opposition to JNOV Motion (#72.0): ALLOWED After hearing and upon review of plaintiff's motion to file opposition to defendant's motion for JNOV, late, and defendant's opposition, the Court allows the filing of the plaintiff's opposition to the JNOV and is satisfied that the plaintiff did file the opposition timely and due to exigencies, the filing did not arrive at defendant's office timely. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

AMENDED JUDGMENT entered on this date.: Judgment After Finding After Jury Waived Trial Presiding: Hon. Elaine M Buckley Judgment For: Joan Stormo Judgment Against: Peter T Clark Terms of Judgment: Interest Begins: 05/29/2014 Jdgmnt Date: 06/27/2018 Interest Rate: .12 Daily Interest Rate: .000329 Damages: Damage Amt: 1034058.13 Damages Multiplier: Treble Punitive Damages: 2068116.26 Crt Ord Atty Fee: 160547.50 Judgment Total: 3,769,627.53

Opposition to #74 Plaintiff's Motion to File Late Opposition filed by Peter T Clark

Plaintiff Joan Stormo's Motion to File Late Opposition to JNOV Motion Omitted from Rule 9A Filing

Endorsement on Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs under G.L. c. 93A (#70.0): ALLOWED Allowed. This was a complex legal malpractice action; the fees requested are reasonable in time and amount and were essential for the Plaintiff's success at trial. Contrary to Defendant's opposition, the assessment is not premature and is warranted. The Court awards attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $160,547.50. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Endorsement on Motion to Enforce Judgment by Assignment of Defendant's Claims against his Professional Liability Insurers (#69.0): ALLOWED Allowed. G.L. c. 223 § 86A imbues the Court authority to assign a property right at anytime after entry of judgment in the Superior Court before or, indeed, during the pendency of appeal. Plaintiff's judgment (monies) is a property right and therefore assignable. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Plaintiff Joan Stormo's Notice of Misstatement in the Previously-Filed "Plaintiff's Motion to File Late Opposition to JNOV Motion."

Plaintiff Joan Stormo's Motion to File Late Opposition to JNOV Motion

Defendant Peter T Clark's Notice of a Motion for judgment nothwithstanding the Verdict Pursuant to Rule 9E

Affidavit of compliance with Superior Court Rule 9A Applies To: Clark, Peter T (Defendant)

Opposition to #70 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Peter T Clark

Plaintiff Joan Stormo's Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs under G.L. c. 93A

Opposition to #69 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Judgment filed by Peter T Clark

Plaintiff Joan Stormo's Motion to Enforce Judgment by Assignment of Defendant's Claims against His Liability Insurers

JUDGMENT entered on this date.: Judgment After Finding as to 93A claims After Jury Waived Trial Presiding: Hon. Elaine M Buckley Judgment For: Joan Stormo Judgment Against: Peter T Clark Terms of Judgment: Interest Begins: 05/29/2014 Jdgmnt Date: 06/27/2018 Interest Rate: .12 Daily Interest Rate: .000329 Damages: Damage Amt: 1034058.13 Damages Multiplier: Treble Punitive Damages: 2068116.26 Judgment Total: 3,609,080.03

JUDGMENT entered on this date.: Judgment on Jury Verdict After Jury Verdict Presiding: Hon. Elaine M Buckley Judgment For: Joan Stormo Judgment Against: Peter T Clark Terms of Judgment: Interest Begins: 10/06/2014 Jdgmnt Date: 06/27/2018 Interest Rate: .12 Daily Interest Rate: .000329 Damages: Damage Amt: 858816.27 Filing Fees: 275.00 Costs Pd to Court: 5.00 Other Costs: 51.60 Judgment Total: 1,243,416.62

Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law: on Plaintiff's Claims for Violation of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A(2) Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Plaintiff(s) Joan Stormo's Motion for a Real Estate Attachment

Plaintiffs Joan Stormo, Karen P Monteiro, Stephen Prosky's Submission of Brief Supporting Claim for Violation of Chapter 93A

Defendant Peter T Clark files proposed Rulings of Law Applies To: Fanger, Esq., Alan S (Attorney) on behalf of Clark, Peter T (Defendant)

Verdict of jury for party

List of exhibits

Endorsement on Submission of Defendant's Proposed Additional Jury Instruction (#56.0): DENIED But did give a further charge from Frankston v. Denniston defending hear p. 21 of Part I. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Endorsement on Motion of Dismiss their Claims (#54.0): ALLOWED Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Endorsement on Motion for Directed Verdict (#55.0): DENIED After hearing, Denied for the reasons stated on the record. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Endorsement on Motion of Legal Elements Directed Verdict (#53.0): DENIED After openings and upon review of this Motion the Court determines that a reasonable view of the opening the proffered facts and theories of Defendant's liability which were asserted and rational inferences drawn reasonably support the Plaintiff's case. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Endorsement on Motion in Limine NO. 2 (#43.0): ALLOWED After hearing, Allowed. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Endorsement on Motion in limine to Preclude Plaintiffs or their counsel from introducing evidence (#42.0): ALLOWED After hearing the Motion is allowed in part. Counsel are to refrain from raising the issue of Clark's knowledge of any discord among the plaintiffs as to representation. However, the issue remains live in trial and the Court will rule de bene as this matter is raised, if at all, through witness testimony. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Endorsement on Motion for Bifurcation of Trial (#41.0): DENIED After hearing and upon review of all filings the Court Denies this Motion. There are no issues unique to this case of any judicial economy that will occur through bifurcation and no undue prejudice to the Defendant. To the contrary, it benefits all parties that the jury hear this complicated case as a hole. Judge: Buckley, Hon. Elaine M

Opposition to #41 Defendant's Motion for Bifurcation of Trial filed by Joan Stormo, Karen P Monteiro, Stephen Prosky

Defendant Peter T Clark's Motion for Bifurcation of Trial

General correspondence regarding Rule 30B Disclosure and Certification by Plaintiffs' Expert

Pre-Trial ORDER: Trial with jury 7 1/2 days scheduled for 4/9/18. "A" Session 1st CASE OUT. Final Trial Conference on 4/5/18 at 2 pm. File motions pursuant to Rule 9A 3/23/18 One week in advance of trial: All motions in limine to be filed Requests for jury instructions Proposed verdict slips

Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum filed:

Endorsement on Motion to continue / reschedule an event Pre-Trial Conference (#37.0): ALLOWED as this is a joint request. Matter is now scheduled for 10/2/17 at 2 pm.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ....For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Endorsement on Motion for summary judgment, MRCP 56 (#28.0): DENIED Refer to Memo of Decision and ORDER.

Endorsement on Motion to continue / reschedule an event (#35.0): ALLOWED as this is a joint motion.

Endorsement on Motion for Speedy Trial under G.L. c. 231, sec59F (#34.0): ALLOWED on February 14, 2017, the motion for Summary judgment was scheduled for hearing on May 18, 2017. On February 22, 2017 the matter was scheduled for final pretrial conference on June 12, 2017. Those dates shall stand. The trial date will be scheduled by the court on May 18, 2017 when the court hears the motion for Summary judgment and is in a better position to determine an appropriate trial date with due consideration of the schedules of the parties and the court.

Defendant Peter T Clark's Reply, Memorandum in Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition to His Motion for Summary Judgment

Opposition to (P#28) Deft's. Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Joan Stormo, Karen P Monteiro, Stephen Prosky

Plaintiff Joan Stormo, Karen P Monteiro, Stephen Prosky's Joint Statement of Material Facts

Endorsement on Motion for summary judgment, MRCP 56 (#28.0): No Action Taken as the filings do not comply with the requirements of Superior Court Rule 9A(b)(5).

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: on Plaintiffs' Special Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Under 12(b)(6); and Third Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Under 12(b)(6)

Service Returned for Applies To: Stormo, Scot (Defendant)

Answer to Counterclaim

Counterclaim filed.

Service Returned for Defendant Clark, Peter T: Service made in hand;

Original civil complaint filed.