Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
DeGroot et al v Maxim Healtcare Services, Inc et al
On January 12, 2012 an other contract action case was filed by (Subcribe to view) represented by (Subcribe to view) against (Subscribe to view) represented by (Subscribe to view) in the jurisdiction of Middlesex County, MA. Judge S. Jane Haggerty presiding.
Case Details
Case Number
Filing Date
January 12, 2012
Last Refreshed
April 10, 2021
Filing Location
Middlesex County, MA
OTHER JUDGES ON THIS CASE
Christine M. Mcevoy;Category
Contract / Business Cases
Practice Area
Commercial
Matter Type
Breach of Contract
Status
Dismissal
OTHER JUDGES ON THIS CASE
Parties
Plaintiffs
Pike, Kevin
Nash, David Christopher
Degroot, Robert
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Tocci, Esq., John F
Gianoulis, Esq., Cary
Defendants
Garceau, Matthew
Norton, Ronald
Barlag, Brett
Lamon, Pat
Bennett, Brad
Maxim Healtcare Services, Inc
Attorneys for Defendants
Curran, Jr., Esq., Patrick M
Mckittrick, Esq., Neil V
Case Events
| Date | Type | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 19, 2013 | Docket Event | Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice. The parties further agree to bear their own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The parties stipulate and agree to waive any and all rights of appeal. | |
| March 21, 2013 | Docket Event |
Nisi dismissal; agreement or stipulation to be filed by 4/24/2013 (Jane Haggerty, Justice)
|
|
| March 21, 2013 | Docket Event | Court received a letter from Atty. David Mason, requesting an extention on the nisi order for an additional 30 days. | |
| February 22, 2013 | Docket Event |
Nisi dismissal; agreement or stipulation to be filed by 3/24/2013 (Jane Haggerty, Justice)
|
|
| January 28, 2013 | Docket Event |
ORDER on Joint MOtion to extend remaining tracking order deadlines. The parties' join moiton to extend the Discovery Deadline and Remaining Tracking Order Deadlines in the above-referenced matter is hereby ALLOWED. The COurt hereby ORDERS that the tracking order in 11-4480-L is amended as follows: Discovery request and depositions served and non-expert dejpositions completed by 3/29/13, All motion under MRCP 56 Served by 4/26/14 Filed by 5/28/13. Final Pretrial conference and/or firm rial date set to be scheduled by the Court. So Ordered. Dated 1/25/13 (Jane Haggerty, Justice)
|
|
| January 28, 2013 | Docket Event |
Motion (P#19) After review, Joint motion to extend is ALLOWED. See Order (Jane Haggerty, Justice). Notices mailed 1/28/2013
|
|
| January 22, 2013 | Docket Event | Joint motion to extend remining tracking order deadlines | |
| November 23, 2012 | Docket Event | Motion (P#18) Allowed. Dated 11-21-12 (Maynard M. Kirpalani, Justice). Notices mailed 11/23/2012 | |
| November 20, 2012 | Docket Event | Joint motion to extend remaining tracking order deadlines | |
| October 02, 2012 | Docket Event | JOINT STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE PRODUCTION AND DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION WHEREAS the Plaintiffs, Robert DeGroot, Kevin Pike, and David Christopher Nash ( Plaintiffs ), commenced the above-captioned action (the Action ) against Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Brett Barlag, Patrick Lamon, W. Bradley Bennett, Ronald Norton, and Matthew Garceau by a Complaint alleging violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, breach of contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment, filed on or about December 15, 2011; WHEREAS, on or about March 22, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act against Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Brett Barlag, Patrick Lamon, W. Bradley Bennett, Ronald Norton, and Matthew Garceau and claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment against Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.; WHEREAS, on or about March 26, 2012, the Court in the Action dismissed all claims against Brett Barlag and Patrick Lamon for failure to serve process;1 WHEREAS, Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., W. Bradley Bennett, Ronald Norton, and Matthew Garceau (the Defendants ) have each answered the Complaint and each deny engaging in the illegal or wrongful conduct alleged by the Plaintiffs in the Action; WHEREAS, Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. has filed a Counterclaim against David Christopher Nash; WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants ( the parties ) have served or will serve upon each other with various discovery requests, including requests for production of documents, interrogatories, requests for admission, and/or notices of deposition; WHEREAS, the parties responses to the discovery requests in the Action may involve the production and disclosure by the parties of confidential and proprietary business and financial documents and information; and WHEREAS, the parties have mutually agreed to produce and disclose to each other such confidential and proprietary business and financial documents and information in contemplation of, and in reliance on, the execution of this Order; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following procedures shall govern the production, disclosure, and use of all confidential documents and information produced in discovery in the Action: 1. Any party and any non-party that avails itself of the protections of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order by notifying counsel for all parties in writing, pursuant to Paragraph 20 hereof producing documents or information shall have the right to designate as Confidential any information that it in good faith believes to be a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information ( Confidential Information ). Any party or non-party producing documents or information shall have the right to designate as Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only any Confidential Information that it in good faith believes to be confidential and competitively sensitive information. A party or non-party designating information as Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only shall be referred to as a Designating Party. 2. (a) Documents produced during the discovery process may be designated as Confidential Information by stamping each page containing Confidential Information with the legend Confidential at the time of such production. In the case of video or audiocassette tapes produced during the discovery process, such materials may be designated as Confidential Information by placing the legend Confidential on such materials at the time of production. (b) Documents produced during the discovery process may be designated as Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only information by stamping each page containing such information with the legend Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only at the time of such production. In the case of video or audiocassette tapes produced during the discovery process, such materials may be designated as Attorneys Eyes Only information by placing the legend Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only on such materials at the time of production. (c) Deposition testimony may be designated as Confidential Information either (i) at the deposition, by making a statement on the record for inclusion in the deposition transcript, or (ii) on or before thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the transcript, by stamping the legend Confidential on the transcript of the deposition and informing all counsel in writing of such designation. Until the expiration of such thirty (30) day period with respect to any deposition transcript, all deposition testimony and transcripts, and any information contained therein, or exhibits thereto, shall be deemed to be Confidential Information and treated as if so designated. (d) Deposition testimony may be designated as Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only information either (i) at the deposition, by making a statement on the record for inclusion in the deposition transcript, or (ii) on or before thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the transcript, by stamping the legend Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only on the transcript of the deposition and informing all counsel in writing of such designation. (e) When Confidential Information is designated in a deposition transcript, the Designating Party shall instruct the reporter to add these legends: (i) on the first page of the transcript, This transcript contains Confidential Information and (ii) on each page containing Confidential Information, Confidential. (f) When Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only information is designated in a deposition transcript, the Designating Party shall instruct the reporter to add these legends: (i) on the first page of the transcript, This transcript contains Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only Information and (ii) on each page containing Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only information, Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only. (g) If all or part of a videotaped deposition is designated as Confidential Information or as Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only information, the videocassette or other videotape container shall be labeled with the legend Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only, as appropriate. (h) The Designating Party may exclude from the deposition room persons other than the witness being deposed and persons entitled to receive information designated as Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only under this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order (depending on the designation of the information being discussed), but only for that portion of the deposition that is designated as Confidential or Confidential-Attorneys Eyes Only, as the case may be. 3. In the event that material stored or recorded in the form of electronic or magnetic media ( Computerized Material ), including but not limited to information databases, or programs stored on computers, disks, networks or tapes, is produced by any party or non-party in electronic or magnetic form, the producing party or non-party may designate the Computerized Material as Confidential Information by cover letter referring generally to such material. Whenever any person to whom Computerized Material is produced or disclosed reduces such material to hard-copy form (as, for example, by printing it to paper), such person shall mark each page of the hard copy with the legend Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only, consistent with the manner in which it has been designated. 4. A document inadvertently or mistakenly produced without a Confidential Information designation subsequently may be designated as Confidential Information by the producing party or non-party pursuant to the terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 above. In each such instance, the Designating Party shall provide to the party or parties to whom the document previously was produced or disclosed written notice of the designation and a copy of the document marked in accordance with paragraph 2 above. No person shall be liable for unauthorized disclosure of a document (other than a deposition transcript disclosed prior to the 30 day period set forth in paragraph 2(b) above) designated pursuant to this paragraph as Confidential Information if the disclosure at issue occurred prior to receipt of written notice of the document s designation as Confidential Information. 5. (a) Confidential Information may only be disclosed to or discussed with Qualified Persons, as that term is defined below in Paragraph 6, and may be used only in connection with the Action, and for no other purpose. All Qualified Persons receiving Confidential Information shall be bound by the terms of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order, and are permanently enjoined from disclosing such Confidential Information in any name to any person other than as permitted by this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no party shall be held in contempt or otherwise be in violation of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order for disclosing information that has been designated by a party as Confidential Information but which this Court determines not to be appropriately designated as covered by this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. (b) Confidential Information that has been designated as Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only may only be disclosed to or discussed with those Qualified Persons referred to in Paragraph 6(a)-(d), and may be used only in connection with the Action, and for no other purpose. All Qualified Persons receiving Confidential Information that has been designated as Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only shall be bound by the terms of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order, and are permanently enjoined from disclosing such Information in any name to any person other than as permitted by this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no party shall be held in contempt or otherwise be in violation of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order for disclosing information that has been designated by a party as Confidential Information but which this Court determines not to be appropriately designated as covered by this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. (c) Confidential Information and Confidential Information that has been designated Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only may be exhibited to witnesses at depositions or any Court hearing in the Action prior to trial; provided, however, that the Confidential Information or Confidential-Attorneys Eyes Only Information used as exhibits will be kept in the custody of the examining counsel and the witness shall not be allowed to retain copies of the information, unless the witness is otherwise entitled to have access to the information hereunder; and provided further, that if the witness is not otherwise entitled to have access to the information, then the witness shall be advised, prior to the exhibiting of any Confidential Information or Confidential Information that has been designated as Confidential-Attorneys Eyes Only, that this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order precludes the use of any of the information they are being shown other than the testimony the witness is then providing. 6. For the purpose of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order, the term Qualified Persons is defined to mean: (a) the Court (and any appellate court), including court personnel, jurors and alternate jurors; (b) court reporters; (c) in-house and outside counsel to the named parties (and, in the case of named corporate parties, their parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates) to the Action; associate attorneys of such counsel; paralegal, clerical, secretarial and other staff employed by such counsel who such counsel shall determine has a need to have access to such information; (d) outside experts, advisors or consultants retained by in-house and outside counsel in the Action; and (e) the named parties (and, in the case of named corporate parties, their directors, officers, members, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and the directors, officers, members, and employees of their parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates). 7. All Qualified Persons who receive Confidential Information pursuant to this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order shall safeguard such information so as to avoid any disclosure of that information, except as provided in this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. 8. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, any party may use without restriction its or his own documents. 9. Prior to any disclosure of Confidential Information to any Qualified Person other than those Qualified Persons defined in paragraphs 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), and 6(e), counsel for the party proposing to make such disclosure shall ensure that a copy of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order has been delivered to such person and shall require that person to read and agree to be bound by this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order by endorsing a certification that states as follows: I certify that I have received and read a copy of the Joint Stipulation and Protective Order in Robert DeGroot, David Christopher Nash, and Kevin Pike v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., W. Bradley Bennett, Ronald Norton and Matthew Garceau. I agree to be bound by the Joint Stipulation and Protective Order and understand that I may be subject to contempt proceedings in the Middlesex Superior Court if I violate the Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. I further understand that information and documents designated as Confidential Information under the Joint Stipulation and Protective Order in this case, and any notes, memoranda, or other form or information derived from such Confidential Information, may not be used or copied by me except in strict accordance with the Joint Stipulation and Protective Order and then only for the prosecution or defense of this litigation, and may not be disclosed to or discussed with anyone else. 10. If any document designated as Confidential Information in accordance with this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order is to be included among any papers filed with the Court as part of any motion or opposition thereto, the Party who designated such document or information as Confidential Information shall (a) if it is the moving party, serve a motion to impound such Confidential Information together with a supporting affidavit in accordance with the Massachusetts Uniform Rules of Impoundment Procedure, Rule VIII of the Trial Court Rules, together with its motion and any supporting papers at the time they are initially served under Superior Court Rule 9A; or (b) if it is the non-moving party, serve with its opposition under Superior Court Rule 9A a motion to impound such Confidential Information, together with a supporting affidavit in accordance with the Massachusetts Uniform Rules of Impoundment Procedure, Rule VIII of the Trial Court Rules. In the alternative, materials containing Confidential Information may be filed with the Court or otherwise disclosed in pleadings, motions, depositions, or other documents if the Confidential Information has first been redacted from the materials. 11. In no event shall any Party submit to the Court any motion or paper of any sort, with the exception of trial exhibits, containing or appending Confidential Information unless and until that Party has: (i) served such motion or paper upon all Parties pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 9A; or (ii) served such motion or paper upon all Parties by hand, with notice that the motion will be filed three (3) days thereafter and that any motion to impound any portion of the motion or paper must be served on the moving party prior to that time; or (iii) obtained the written consent of the party designating the Confidential Information as Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only to file such motion or paper without impoundment of the Confidential Information; or (iv) obtained an Order from the Court pursuant to Paragraph 13, below, either (a) authorizing the filing of such motion or paper with the Court notwithstanding the fact that it contains information that has been designated as Confidential Information; or (b) ordering that the Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only designation(s) be removed from the information contained in or appended to that motion or paper. 12. If any Confidential Information is included among any papers filed with the Appeals Court or the Supreme Judicial Court, the Party submitting such Confidential Information shall take all steps prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court including, but not limited to, Rule 1:15 of the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court, and Rules 16(m) and 18(g) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for the impoundment of such Confidential Information. 13. Any party (the Objecting Party ) to the Action to whom Confidential Information has been provided may object at any time to the Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only designation. The objection shall be made in writing to counsel for the Designating Party. Counsel shall confer in good faith in an effort to resolve any dispute concerning such designation.2 If the objection cannot be resolved by agreement within five (5) business days of receipt of the objection, the Objecting Party may, at any time following the tenth business day after the Designating Party s receipt of the objection, move the Court to change the Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only designation. In the event of such motion, all materials whose designation is so objected to shall continue to be treated in the manner designated until the Court rules to the contrary. Nothing herein is intended to alter the requirements for a protective order as they otherwise exist under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c). No party to the Action shall be deemed, by treating information as Confidential Information, to have conceded that the information actually is Confidential Information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no party shall be held in contempt or otherwise be in violation of this Order for disclosing information that has been designated by a party as Confidential Information but which this Court determines not to be appropriately designated as covered by this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. 14. If any party (the Subpoenaed Party ) is served with a lawful subpoena or document request or any other compulsory legal process by a person not a party to this action (the Subpoenaing Party ) seeking information or material that was produced or designated as Confidential Information by someone other than the Subpoenaed Party, the Subpoenaed Party shall immediately give written notice by hand delivery or facsimile transmission to the Designating Party. Notice shall include a copy of the subpoena, document request or other compulsory legal process. The Subpoenaed Party shall also give prompt written notice, by hand delivery or facsimile transmission, within ten (10) days of receipt of the subpoena, document request or other compulsory legal process, to the Subpoenaing Party that the information or material sought is protected by this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. Notice shall include the identity of the Designating Party. It shall be the obligation of the Designating Party to move for any protective order to prevent information from being provided to the Subpoenaing Party. Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the Subpoenaed Party or anyone else subject to the terms of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order to challenge or appeal any order requiring production of Confidential Information, or to subject itself to any penalties for noncompliance with any legal process or order, or to seek any relief from this Court or any other court or tribunal. 15. The provisions and terms of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order shall, absent written permission of the Designating Party or further Order of the Court, continue to be binding throughout the action, including appeals, and after the conclusion of the action. Within sixty (60) days after receiving notice of the entry of an order, judgment or decree finally disposing of this action, including any appeals, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants shall collect all Confidential Information that was produced respectively to that counsel in this action, including without limitation all information which counsel provided to consultants, experts, or other persons, and shall destroy all such Confidential Information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, counsel for the parties may maintain in their files copies of each pleading and litigation document filed with the Court, and each written discovery request and written response thereto. Nothing in this paragraph shall require any party to destroy attorney work product or attorney-client communications that contain or reflect Confidential Information. 16. Nothing contained in this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order shall: (a) limit the right of each party to disclose its own Confidential Information, such disclosure not being subject to the protection procedures set forth in this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order and which shall not result in waiving the claimed confidentiality (except to the extent the disclosure makes such Confidential Information a matter of public record); or (b) limit, expand or restrict any right of any party to seek, resist, or compel discovery, or the right of any party to seek additional protection pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. 17. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any party is entitled to use Confidential Information during the trial of this Action in a manner consistent with the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to reasonable objections by the party which produced the Confidential Information. No party shall be held in contempt or otherwise be in violation of this Order for disclosing information that has been designated by a party as Confidential Information but which this Court determines not to be appropriately designated as covered by this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order. 18. The foregoing is without prejudice to the right of any party hereto to apply to the Court for a further protective order relating to any Confidential Information or for an order permitting disclosure of Confidential Information other than as provided herein. The provisions hereof may also be modified on the Court s own motion. 19. In the event any person shall violate or threaten to violate any of the terms hereof, the aggrieved party may seek any appropriate remedy from the Court, and no party hereto shall raise as a defense to a request for injunctive relief that the aggrieved party possesses an adequate remedy at law. 20. Any non-party producing documents or information in connection with this Action may avail itself of the protections of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order by notifying counsel for all parties in writing. 21. In the event that a party (or a non-party that has availed itself of the protections of this Joint Stipulation and Protective Order in accordance with Paragraph 20, above) inadvertently produces information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection from disclosure, within a reasonable time after the producing party or producing non-party discovers the inadvertent disclosure, the producing party or producing non-party may make a written request to the other parties to return the inadvertently produced document. Upon receipt of the written request, all parties who received the inadvertently produced document must (a) promptly either return the document and any copies it has to the producing party or producing non-party, or destroy the document and all copies it has of it, and (b) take reasonable steps to retrieve the document and any copies if the party disclosed it before being notified, and then promptly return the document and any copies to the producing party or producing non-party, or destroy the document and any copies. By returning or destroying the document, the receiving parties do not concede that the document is privileged and do not waive their right to later challenge the privilege claim; except that they may not challenge the privilege claim by arguing that the inadvertent production waived the privilege. 22. To the extent that any Confidential Information of either party is disclosed in discovery prior to the entry of this Order by the Court, the parties agree that this agreement shall be binding upon execution by counsel for all parties. 23. This Joint Stipulation and Protective Order shall be binding upon the Parties, their successors, representatives, and assigns, as well as all counsel for the Parties hereto and their paralegals and office employees. LIMITATIONS 24. The persons identified in Paragraph 6(a) herein are not bound by this Order, but are subject to whatever limitations are generally imposed on them by applicable law, Court rules, and ethical requirements as to their use or dissemination of information received by them in the conduct of their official business. 25. This Order does not itself permit or require the filing of any document under seal or impoundment of any document, nor does it in any way affect public access to any document that may be filed by the Court. If and when the parties seek to file material with the Court under seal, or to have any material filed impounded, or otherwise to limit public access to any material filed with the Court, they must seek appropriate court orders in reference to the particular material in issue. Dated 9-24-12 SO ORDERED: (McEvoy, J.) | |
| October 01, 2012 | Docket Event |
Motion (P#16) Motion Allowed. Dated 9/25/12 By the Court (Christine M\. McEvoy, Justice). Notices mailed 10/1/2012
|
|
| October 01, 2012 | Docket Event |
Motion (P#15) Motion allowed. Dated 9/25/12 (Christine M\. McEvoy, Justice). Notices mailed 10/1/2012
|
|
| September 25, 2012 | Docket Event | Joint motion to extend remaining tracking order deadlines | |
| September 25, 2012 | Docket Event | Joint Motion for Protective Order in accordance with MRCP 26(c) | |
| August 29, 2012 | Docket Event | Case status changed to 'Needs discovery' at answer deadline review | |
| April 25, 2012 | Docket Event | ANSWER: David Christopher Nash (Defendant/counterclaim) | |
| April 17, 2012 | Docket Event | ANSWER (amended complaint): Brad Bennett | |
| April 17, 2012 | Docket Event | SERVICE RETURNED: Brad Bennett (Defendant), in hd, Karen Bennett, wife/agent, 3112 W Golf Course Rd, Owings Mills, MD, on 02/15/2012 | |
| April 11, 2012 | Docket Event | Motion (P#9) allowed service to be returned and filed with the court within 20 days. By the Court (Garry V. Inge, Justice). Notices mailed 4/11/2012 | |
| April 04, 2012 | Docket Event | ANSWER by Ronald Norton, Matthew Garceau to COMPLAINT (claim of trial by jury reqstd) | |
| April 04, 2012 | Docket Event | ANSWER by Maxim Healtcare Services, Inc to COMPLAINT (claim of trial by jury reqstd) | |
| April 02, 2012 | Docket Event | Plaintiffs' motion to vacate order of dismissal under Standing Order 1-88, with supporting memorandum | |
| March 26, 2012 | Docket Event | Case status changed to 'Needs review for answers' at service deadline review | |
| March 26, 2012 | Docket Event | ORDER OF DISMISSAL re: Brad Bennett; Pat Lamon; Brett Barlag (w/o prejudice; service not complete by 1-88 deadline). Copies mailed. | |
| March 23, 2012 | Docket Event | Amended complaint of Robert DeGroot, David Christopher Nash and Kevin Pike | |
| March 19, 2012 | Docket Event | MEMORANDUM & ORDER on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss: The motion of Norton and Graceau to dismiss Counts II, III and IV against them is ALLOWED. The motion of Norton and Garceau to dismiss Count I is DENIED. Maxim's motion to dismiss Counts III and IV against it is ALLOWED, without prejudice to plaintiffs amending the complaint to re-plead the claims; which see 2 page Memorandum. By the Court (Leibensperger, J.) copies mailed 03/19/2012 | |
| February 01, 2012 | Docket Event | Defendants Maxim Healtcare Services, Inc, Ronald Norton and Matthew Garceaus's MOTION to Dismiss (MRCP 12b) Complaint of Plaintiffs; Memorandum in support of defts' motion; Plaintiffs' opposition to deft's motion; Defts' Request for Hearing | |
| January 18, 2012 | Docket Event | Defendants Maxim Healtcare Services, Inc, Ronald Norton and Matthew Garceau's Notice of intent to file motion to dismiss. | |
| January 12, 2012 | Docket Event | SERVICE RETURNED: Matthew Garceau (Defendant), l&u, 303 Shore Dr, Salem, NH, on 12/30/2011 | |
| January 12, 2012 | Docket Event | SERVICE RETURNED: Ronald Norton (Defendant), l&u, 59 Ox Pasture Lane, Cohasset, MA, on 01/03/2012 | |
| January 12, 2012 | Docket Event | SERVICE RETURNED: Maxim Healtcare Services, Inc (Defendant), in hd, Christina Evans, agent, 84 State St, Boston, MA, on 12/29/2011 | |
| December 15, 2011 | Docket Event | Origin 1, Type A99, Track F. | |
| December 15, 2011 | Docket Event | Complaint & civil action cover sheet filed |
