Preview
Ao [04
\
OTIFY
a
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
SUFFOLK DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2284 CV 00379,
TRACY FIRICANO and LEO FIRICANO,
Plaintiffs =
=
=
Vs.
CHRISTOPHER PAPETTI,
Defendant
MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS, TRACY FIRICANO AND LEO FIRICANO, FOR A
CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING ON THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 AT 2:00 PM
Now come the plaintiffs, Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano, and respectfully request that
this court grant a continuance of the hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to
Mass. R. Civ. P. 12, said motion having been scheduled for September 1, 2022 at 2:00 PM.
The plaintiffs submit a memorandum hereto in support of their motion for a continuance.
Inar b ibe Respectfully
Counsel fy
mifted,
tiffs,
Nlofiie Ser}
of Jim, Get 08/24/22
G prj 2/
LY) taney ove BBO#558 273
tiffs C2)
{Cie
f- Peruzzi Law Office, LLC
Ale 7 1266 Furnace Brook Pkwy., Suite 400
Quincy, MA 02169
(617) 586-0883
caperruzzi@perruzzilaw.com
Dated: August 17, 2022
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
SUFFOLK DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2284 CV 00379
TRACY FIRICANO and LEO FIRICANO,
Plaintiffs
Vs.
CHRISTOPHER PAPETTI,
Defendant
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS, TRACY
FIRICANO AND LEO FIRICANO, FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING ON
THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2022
AT 2:00 PM
Relevant Facts
This is an action to enforce a lien for the care and maintenance of a dog named Buddy.
The plaintiffs, Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano, are a married couple who, at one time, were
friendly with the defendant, Christopher Papetti. Ms. Firicano had been very close to the
defendant’s deceased wife, Julie Venditti, and had, prior to her untimely passing, performed legal
services for both the defendant and his spouse.
The simple fact of the plaintiffs’ former friendship with the defendant, and plaintiff Tracy
Firicano providing services to the defendant prior to and subsequent to the passing of his wife,
have created three separate instances of litigation between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Those
instances of litigation will be described, in sum, below.
Christopher Papetti v. Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano
West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court, Small Claims Division
Docket No. 2106 SC 001164
Prior to Noveriber 19, 2021, the defendant, Christopher Papetti, had purchased the dog
named Buddy for his spouse, Julie Venditti. That dog was, upon information and belief, a constant
companion to the decedent until her untimely passing on November 19, 2019. Following her
passing, the defendant, Christopher Papetti would, from time to time, request that the plaintiffs
provide day care services to the dog named Buddy. As time progressed, the services extended
beyond a simple day-to-day service and evolved into protracted overnight stays with the plaintiffs.
It is the plaintiffs’ position that, sometime after November 19, 2019, the time that the dog named
Buddy lived with the plaintiffs progressively increased, and ultimately the dog remained with the
plaintiffs continuously.
In January 2021, the plaintiffs had notified the defendant that they would be spending time
in Florida and would be bringing the dog, Buddy, with them to that state. From January 2021 until
March 5, 2022, the dog named Buddy was fully residing with the plaintiffs, Tracy Firicano and
Leo Firicano.
On or about September 16, 2021, the defendant filed a statement of small claim in the East
Boston Division of the Boston Municipal Court. The matter was transferred to the West Roxbury
Division, and a judgment entered on October 13, 2021 for Christopher Papetti, the plaintiff in that
:
1
matter. Subsequent to that small claims hearing, significant motion practice occurred. That motion
practice involved motions for relief from judgment and an appeal to a single justice pursuant to G.
L. c. 211, §3. An appeals trial to a jury-of-six occurred on April 13, 2022. Prior to the
commencement of trial, the plaintiff Christopher Papetti, through his attorneys, dismissed his claim
for money damages against Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano, and went forward with the trial solely
as to the issue of ownership of the dog named Buddy. After that trial, a verdict for Christopher
Papetti, the plaintiff in that action, was rendered on April 13, 2022.
Prior to that jury trial, the dog named Buddy had been returned to the defendant,
Christopher Papetti, on or about March 5, 2022.
After April 13, 2022, a motion for attorney’s fees was filed by Christopher Papetti and a
motion for sanctions against Christopher Papetti’s counsel was filed by Tracy and Leo Firicano.
After a decision denying all posttrial motions, a Notice of Appeal was filed by Tracy Firicano and
Leo Firicano, as defendants in that matter, on or about June 2, 2022.!
Firicano Law, P.C. v. Christopher Papetti
Suffolk Superior Court docket no. 2184 CV 2892
On or about December 21, 2021, prior counsel for Firicano Law, P.C., filed a complaint in
the Suffolk Superior Court, bearing Docket no. 2184 CV 2892, alleging four separate counts for
'This court should be aware that, at the very same time that Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano filed, in the West Roxbury
Division of the Boston Municipal Court, their Notice of Appeal on June 2, 2022, Christopher Papetti filed a complaint
against Tracy Firicano with the Board of Bar Overseers (his complaint was dated June 2, 2022 and was filed on June
6, 2022). That complaint is presently pending. Within the contents of that complaint, Mr. Papetti expressly cites the
instant action, #2284CV00379, as well as the other two actions involving Tracy Firicano and Christopher Papetti,
#2184CV2892 and #2106SC001 164, in support of his BBO complaint against her.
4
1
relief; namely, a count for legal services rendered, a count for indebtedness based upon a contract,
acount based upon a statement of account, and a count for in quantum meruit. The damages sought
in the complaint are $63,512.07. In response, the defendant, Christopher Papetti, brought
counterclaims against Tracy Firicano, as well as against her former counsel, Marc D. Wallick, and
his law firm, Wallick & Associates, Ltd. A motion for joinder was brought by counsel for Mr.
Papetti, which was allowed. Answers to these counterclaims have been filed. No discovery has yet
occurred in this pending matter.
Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano v. Christopher Papetti
2284 CV 00379
This is a matter brought by Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano for a lien relative to the care
and maintenance of the dog named Buddy while that dog was in the custody of Tracy Firicano and
Leo Firicano, That complaint relevant to this matter was filed electronically on or about February
18, 2022, some 7 days following an order dated February 11, 2022 from a justice of the small
claims division of the West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court, ordering the return
of the dog named Buddy to Christopher Papetti. The transfer of the dog named Buddy occurred on
or about March 5, 2022 in Boynton Beach, Florida, at which point the Firicanos had provided care
and maintenance for the dog named Buddy for a period exceeding one-and-a-half years; and in
connection with that care and maintenance, the Firicanos had made substantial financial
expenditures.
Christopher Papetti has filed a motion to dismiss with this court, citing various grounds
which Mr. Papetti believes are appropriate grounds for dismissal. An opposition has been filed by
the plaintiffs. Argument in this matter has been scheduled for September 1, 2022, at 2:00 PM in
person.
Argument
The plaintiffs have sought agreement with the defendant to continue the hearing from
September 1, 2022 until a date one week following September 1, 2022. See, affidavit of
Christopher A. Perruzzi, annexed hereto as Exhibit “1”. That agreement, based on the emails
received from counsel for the defendant, will not be forthcoming.
Based upon the calendar of counsel in and around September 1, 2022, the request for a
continuance was made in good faith and upon reasonable grounds. The motion to dismiss pursuant
to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 in the above-captioned matter raises serious issues, with arguments both
supporting dismissal, and opposing dismissal. Counsel for the plaintiffs can be ready on September
1, 2022 to argue the plaintiff's’ opposition to this motion to dismiss; however, counsel sought
additional time simply based upon his calendar for the day preceding this motion, and the day
following this motion. In and of itself, the probable cause hearing on September 2, 2022 requires
witness preparation. The pretrial hearings preceding September 1, 2022 require significant client
management; one of those clients is held as a dangerous person pursuant to G. L. c. 276, §58A.
Nevertheless, the calendar for counsel does not present an insurmountable chronological conflict.
However, the plaintiffs seek this continuance based on additional grounds. The plaintiffs
assert that their counsel should have a substantial opportunity to prepare for this hearing on the
defendant’s motion to dismiss, and should not be forced to compartmentalize their matter with
other equally serious matters for other clients. The plaintiffs make this argument because the issues
raised in this particular motion to dismiss are significant not only with respect to this case, but they
are equally significant relative to other litigation matters involving these plaintiffs and this
defendant, not the least of which is the defendant’s complaint before the Board of Bar Overseers
brought against the plaintiff, Tracy Firicano. Counsel for this defendant has referenced, on at least
2 separate occasions, the defendant’s intent to pursue an ethics complaint against her, should she
not dismiss the pending litigation asserting a claim for fees. ? Further, Mr. Papetti explicitly cited
all three causes of action within the contents of his complaint with the Board of Bar Overseers by
identifying each one by docket number: #2106SC001 164; #2184CV2892; and #2184CV2892, the
instant complaint before this court. Thus, while it is usual and general practice in the civil courts
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for parties to allow their counsel to appear on their behalf:
in this particular matter, the plaintiffs wish to appear in person for this in-person hearing on the
defendant’s motion to dismiss. This complaint, and the other pending issues that these plaintiffs
have with this defendant, present very serious matters to this court. While the parties’ dispute
commenced with the dog named Buddy, those disputes are now much greater than simply a
question of ownership of a dog and the associated costs for his care and maintenance. They present
issues of subject matter jurisdiction of a court, questions concerning whether a judgment is void
because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, questions concerning a fee owed to an attorney in
? These statements were made prior to the electronic filing of this complaint seeking to assert a lien for care and
maintenance of the dog named Buddy and were memorialized in email correspondence with the plaintiffs’ prior
counsel. These statements by counsel for the defendant, threatening BBO action against Tracy Firicano during
settlement negotiations, also comprised one of the grounds in support of Tracy and Leo Firicano’s motion for sanctions
against Christopher Papetti’s counsel, previously filed in the West Roxbury Division.
7
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and now, serious issues of alleged ethical breaches by that
attorney.
The plaintiffs are not able to appear in person on September 1, 2022, but given the serious
nature of this litigation, both singularly, as well as combined with the other ongoing matters, they
wish to have an opportunity to appear in person before this court. Certainly, the defendant has
made clear his intentions to attend the hearing in person. See, affidavit of Christopher A. Perruzzi,
annexed hereto as Exhibit “1,” par. 4 (By defense counsel: “I know our client has already adjusted
his schedule to be able to attend on 9/1.”), and accordingly, the plaintiffs’ inability to similarly
appear in person would create an imbalance relative to the hearing. However, on September 1,
2022, they would only be able to appear before this court on a virtual basis due to an annual
vacation which they take to celebrate their wedding anniversary and plaintiff Tracy Firicano’s
birthday. See, Superior Court standing order 1-22, effective September 1, 2022, annexed hereto
as Exhibit “2”, and specifically paragraph 5.
The plaintiffs are sensitive to the fact that Mr. Papetti is, upon information and belief,
treating this litigation as a serious matter. They are also sensitive to this court’s calendar which,
upon information and belief, subsequent to the Covid pandemic, is extremely backlogged.
Nevertheless, and in light of these very real issues which stand as justification to allow this hearing
to stand on September 1, 2022, the plaintiffs respectfully request that this court grant a continuance
in order that they may appear in person; alternatively, they seek leave to appear virtually before
this court.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs, Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano respectfully
request that this court grant a brief continuance on the hearing regarding the defendant’s motion
to dismiss.
%7,
Respectfully
Counse!
iG le
tiffs,
d,
fi
oH
Perruzzi Law Off r
ones 273
1266 Furnace Brook Pkwy., Suite 400
Quincy, MA 02169
(617) 586-0883
caperruzzi@perruzzilaw.com
Exhibit 1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
SUFFOLK SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO.
TRACY FIRICANO and LEO FIRICANO,
Plaintiffs
Vs.
CHRISTOPHER PAPETTI,
Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER A. PERRUZZI
I, Christopher A. Perruzzi, under oath do depose and say:
1 I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and ] am
in good standing.
My principal place of business is located at 1266 Furnace Brook Pkwy., Suite 400, Quincy,
MA 02169.
I am counsel to the plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter.
After receiving notice of the hearing scheduled for September 1, 2022, at 2:00 PM, I
communicated with counsel for the defendant, and requested a continuance of this hearing.
In response, I received communication from his counsel of record on Monday, August 8,
,
2022 which stated:
“We received your letter. |
Do you have a conflict or what is the reason for your continuance request? And what
timeframe are you proposing for the new hearing? I can then run it by our client. I know
our client has already adjusted his schedule to be able to attend on 9/1.”
I replied to that email correspondence on Tuesday, August 9, 2022 in the following manner:
Good afternoon, with respect to whether or not ] have a "conflict" on September 1, I have
a probable cause hearing in the Dedham District Court the following day which, given the
nature of the charges, requires some witness preparation.
I'm only looking for a weeklong continuance, I recognize that your client wishes to have
the motion to dismiss heard as expeditiously as possible. My next available date would be
September 8, 2022.
Please advise whether, given my representations, you would be amenable to a brief
continuance to September 8, or whether you desire that I file a motion to continue this
matter subject to opposition procedure.
Thank you.”
On August 9, 2022 counsel replied: “
“Thank you for the additional information. Can you call the court to make sure their
schedule is open for other days early September? If we can get a hearing by mid-September
than I can agree to the request. If the Court says they are booked until October or November
then I will not be able to agree.”
After advising that I would inquire of the court, on Thursday, August 11, 2022, I sent
further email communication to counsel for the defendant, stating as follows:
“Good afternoon, I spoke with the clerk in the session for this particular matter. The earliest
date for the rescheduling of the defendant's motion to dismiss would be October 20, 2022.
The next available dates are October 25, October 26, and October 27.”
Following the issuance of that email, I received your email correspondence from counsel
for the defendant, stating as follows:
“Thank you for following up with the clerk. As previously noted, we will not be able to
agree to the continuance because of the long period until the next available date. “
With respect to my court calendar for August 31, 2022, my calendar on Masscourts.org
confirms that I have 9 pretrial hearings on August 31. That same calendar also confirms
that on September 2, 2022. I have a probable cause hearing in the matter of Commonwealth
of Massachusetts v. Cleyton Rafael Ortiz, Dedham District Court Docket no. 2254 CR 752.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 17" day, st, 2022.
oy,
Ch ‘topher A. P UuzZI
Exhibit 2
Superior Court Standing Order 1-22
Videoconferencing of Court Events
Applicable to All Courts
1, Introduction
This Standing Order is effective September 1, 2022, and rescinds and supersedes Superior Court
Standing Order 1-20, which became effective February 1, 2020, and Superior Court Standing Order 4—
21, which became effective July 12, 2021. This Standing Order shall remain in effect until further
order of the court.
Consistent with constitutional, statutory, and other applicable rights, and in the interest of justice,
certain criminal and civil proceedings may be conducted by videoconference pursuant to this Standing
Order.
2. Criminal Cases
A, Presumptive Videoconference Hearings
Hearings in criminal cases are presumptively held by videoconference for:
bail hearings for persons in custody who waive physical presence in the courtroom;
bail reviews and non-testimonial hearings for reviews of G.L. c. 276, § 58A dangerousness
determinations for persons in custody;
hearings on G.L. c. 276, § 58A motions without witnesses;
status and scheduling conferences;
discovery conferences, including hearings on non-evidentiary motions (where a hearing is
warranted, and defendant waives physical presence);
pretrial conferences; and
probation status conferences.
B. Presumptive In-Person Hearings
Hearings in criminal cases are presumptively held in person for:
initial bail hearings for persons not in custody;
58A dangerousness hearings with witnesses;
motions to dismiss and suppress;
plea conferences and plea hearings pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 12;
Daubert-Lanigan hearings;
final trial conferences, including motions in limine;
trials;
sentencing hearings; and
initial and final probation violation hearings.
1
C. Arraignments
There is no presumptive method for conducting an arraignment. Judges are encouraged to conduct
arraignments by videoconference where the defendant is in custody and waives physical presence,
absent reasons for the defendant and counsel to be physically present.
D. Conversion of Presumptive In-Person Hearings to Videoconference Hearings in
Criminal Cases
A criminal hearing designated as presumptively in person pursuant to this Standing Order may be held
by videoconference in a judge’s discretion, consistent with constitutional, statutory, and other
applicable rights. A judge should consider the nature of the proceeding, including whether it is
testimonial, evidentiary, or requires a credibility determination; any agreement of the parties; and
waiver of any right to physical presence.
3. Civil Cases
A, Presumptive Videoconference Hearings
Hearings in civil cases are presumptively held by videoconference for:
initial case management conferences;
discovery disputes, motions to compel, motions for protective order (if hearing warranted);
scheduling conferences;
final pretrial conferences;
motions to dismiss;
motions to amend complaint (if hearing warranted);
motions for default judgment/assessment of damages; and
motions to set aside default (if hearing warranted).
Medical malpractice tribunals are presumptively held by videoconference.
B. Presumptive In-Person Hearings
Hearings in civil cases are presumptively held in person for:
injunction hearings, including ex parte motions for injunctions;
hearings on equitable motions, including motions for attachment, trustee process, reach and
apply;
proceedings involving credibility determinations;
motions for summary judgment;
Daubert-Lanigan hearings;
final trial conferences, including motions in limine; and
trials.
C. Conversion of Presumptive In-Person Hearings to Videoconference Hearings in Civil
Cases
A civil hearing designated as presumptively in person pursuant to this Standing Order may be held by
videoconference in a judge’s discretion and for good cause.
4 Conversion of Presumptive Videoconference Hearing to In-Person Hearing
A judge may order that a criminal or civil hearing designated as presumptively held by
videoconference pursuant to this Standing Order be held in person if the judge determines that such a
hearing is necessary for fair and efficient resolution of a matter.
5 Hybrid Proceedings
A “hybrid” proceeding, where some participants appear in person and others appear by
videoconference, may be held on request and in the discretion of the court, and consistent with
constitutional, statutory, and other applicable rights. Any participant who requests to appear by
videoconference at an in-person proceeding shall have no grounds to object to any other participant
appearing in person.
6. Self-Represented Litigants
For any videoconference hearing involving a self-represented litigant with limited access to, or limited
facility with, videoconference technology, the court shall facilitate participation by videoconference or
shall offer an alternative means of participation.
7 Public Access
Information on public access to virtual proceedings shall be available from the Superior Court Clerks’
Offices.
So ordered,
/s/ Heidi Brieger
Heidi E. Brieger
Chief Justice of the Superior Court
Adopted: August __, 2022
Effective: September 1, 2022
Preview
Ao [04 \ OTIFY a COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT SUFFOLK DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 2284 CV 00379, TRACY FIRICANO and LEO FIRICANO, Plaintiffs = = = Vs. CHRISTOPHER PAPETTI, Defendant MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS, TRACY FIRICANO AND LEO FIRICANO, FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING ON THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 AT 2:00 PM Now come the plaintiffs, Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano, and respectfully request that this court grant a continuance of the hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12, said motion having been scheduled for September 1, 2022 at 2:00 PM. The plaintiffs submit a memorandum hereto in support of their motion for a continuance. Inar b ibe Respectfully Counsel fy mifted, tiffs, Nlofiie Ser} of Jim, Get 08/24/22 G prj 2/ LY) taney ove BBO#558 273 tiffs C2) {Cie f- Peruzzi Law Office, LLC Ale 7 1266 Furnace Brook Pkwy., Suite 400 Quincy, MA 02169 (617) 586-0883 caperruzzi@perruzzilaw.com Dated: August 17, 2022 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT SUFFOLK DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 2284 CV 00379 TRACY FIRICANO and LEO FIRICANO, Plaintiffs Vs. CHRISTOPHER PAPETTI, Defendant MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS, TRACY FIRICANO AND LEO FIRICANO, FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING ON THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 AT 2:00 PM Relevant Facts This is an action to enforce a lien for the care and maintenance of a dog named Buddy. The plaintiffs, Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano, are a married couple who, at one time, were friendly with the defendant, Christopher Papetti. Ms. Firicano had been very close to the defendant’s deceased wife, Julie Venditti, and had, prior to her untimely passing, performed legal services for both the defendant and his spouse. The simple fact of the plaintiffs’ former friendship with the defendant, and plaintiff Tracy Firicano providing services to the defendant prior to and subsequent to the passing of his wife, have created three separate instances of litigation between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Those instances of litigation will be described, in sum, below. Christopher Papetti v. Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court, Small Claims Division Docket No. 2106 SC 001164 Prior to Noveriber 19, 2021, the defendant, Christopher Papetti, had purchased the dog named Buddy for his spouse, Julie Venditti. That dog was, upon information and belief, a constant companion to the decedent until her untimely passing on November 19, 2019. Following her passing, the defendant, Christopher Papetti would, from time to time, request that the plaintiffs provide day care services to the dog named Buddy. As time progressed, the services extended beyond a simple day-to-day service and evolved into protracted overnight stays with the plaintiffs. It is the plaintiffs’ position that, sometime after November 19, 2019, the time that the dog named Buddy lived with the plaintiffs progressively increased, and ultimately the dog remained with the plaintiffs continuously. In January 2021, the plaintiffs had notified the defendant that they would be spending time in Florida and would be bringing the dog, Buddy, with them to that state. From January 2021 until March 5, 2022, the dog named Buddy was fully residing with the plaintiffs, Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano. On or about September 16, 2021, the defendant filed a statement of small claim in the East Boston Division of the Boston Municipal Court. The matter was transferred to the West Roxbury Division, and a judgment entered on October 13, 2021 for Christopher Papetti, the plaintiff in that : 1 matter. Subsequent to that small claims hearing, significant motion practice occurred. That motion practice involved motions for relief from judgment and an appeal to a single justice pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3. An appeals trial to a jury-of-six occurred on April 13, 2022. Prior to the commencement of trial, the plaintiff Christopher Papetti, through his attorneys, dismissed his claim for money damages against Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano, and went forward with the trial solely as to the issue of ownership of the dog named Buddy. After that trial, a verdict for Christopher Papetti, the plaintiff in that action, was rendered on April 13, 2022. Prior to that jury trial, the dog named Buddy had been returned to the defendant, Christopher Papetti, on or about March 5, 2022. After April 13, 2022, a motion for attorney’s fees was filed by Christopher Papetti and a motion for sanctions against Christopher Papetti’s counsel was filed by Tracy and Leo Firicano. After a decision denying all posttrial motions, a Notice of Appeal was filed by Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano, as defendants in that matter, on or about June 2, 2022.! Firicano Law, P.C. v. Christopher Papetti Suffolk Superior Court docket no. 2184 CV 2892 On or about December 21, 2021, prior counsel for Firicano Law, P.C., filed a complaint in the Suffolk Superior Court, bearing Docket no. 2184 CV 2892, alleging four separate counts for 'This court should be aware that, at the very same time that Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano filed, in the West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court, their Notice of Appeal on June 2, 2022, Christopher Papetti filed a complaint against Tracy Firicano with the Board of Bar Overseers (his complaint was dated June 2, 2022 and was filed on June 6, 2022). That complaint is presently pending. Within the contents of that complaint, Mr. Papetti expressly cites the instant action, #2284CV00379, as well as the other two actions involving Tracy Firicano and Christopher Papetti, #2184CV2892 and #2106SC001 164, in support of his BBO complaint against her. 4 1 relief; namely, a count for legal services rendered, a count for indebtedness based upon a contract, acount based upon a statement of account, and a count for in quantum meruit. The damages sought in the complaint are $63,512.07. In response, the defendant, Christopher Papetti, brought counterclaims against Tracy Firicano, as well as against her former counsel, Marc D. Wallick, and his law firm, Wallick & Associates, Ltd. A motion for joinder was brought by counsel for Mr. Papetti, which was allowed. Answers to these counterclaims have been filed. No discovery has yet occurred in this pending matter. Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano v. Christopher Papetti 2284 CV 00379 This is a matter brought by Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano for a lien relative to the care and maintenance of the dog named Buddy while that dog was in the custody of Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano, That complaint relevant to this matter was filed electronically on or about February 18, 2022, some 7 days following an order dated February 11, 2022 from a justice of the small claims division of the West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court, ordering the return of the dog named Buddy to Christopher Papetti. The transfer of the dog named Buddy occurred on or about March 5, 2022 in Boynton Beach, Florida, at which point the Firicanos had provided care and maintenance for the dog named Buddy for a period exceeding one-and-a-half years; and in connection with that care and maintenance, the Firicanos had made substantial financial expenditures. Christopher Papetti has filed a motion to dismiss with this court, citing various grounds which Mr. Papetti believes are appropriate grounds for dismissal. An opposition has been filed by the plaintiffs. Argument in this matter has been scheduled for September 1, 2022, at 2:00 PM in person. Argument The plaintiffs have sought agreement with the defendant to continue the hearing from September 1, 2022 until a date one week following September 1, 2022. See, affidavit of Christopher A. Perruzzi, annexed hereto as Exhibit “1”. That agreement, based on the emails received from counsel for the defendant, will not be forthcoming. Based upon the calendar of counsel in and around September 1, 2022, the request for a continuance was made in good faith and upon reasonable grounds. The motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 in the above-captioned matter raises serious issues, with arguments both supporting dismissal, and opposing dismissal. Counsel for the plaintiffs can be ready on September 1, 2022 to argue the plaintiff's’ opposition to this motion to dismiss; however, counsel sought additional time simply based upon his calendar for the day preceding this motion, and the day following this motion. In and of itself, the probable cause hearing on September 2, 2022 requires witness preparation. The pretrial hearings preceding September 1, 2022 require significant client management; one of those clients is held as a dangerous person pursuant to G. L. c. 276, §58A. Nevertheless, the calendar for counsel does not present an insurmountable chronological conflict. However, the plaintiffs seek this continuance based on additional grounds. The plaintiffs assert that their counsel should have a substantial opportunity to prepare for this hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and should not be forced to compartmentalize their matter with other equally serious matters for other clients. The plaintiffs make this argument because the issues raised in this particular motion to dismiss are significant not only with respect to this case, but they are equally significant relative to other litigation matters involving these plaintiffs and this defendant, not the least of which is the defendant’s complaint before the Board of Bar Overseers brought against the plaintiff, Tracy Firicano. Counsel for this defendant has referenced, on at least 2 separate occasions, the defendant’s intent to pursue an ethics complaint against her, should she not dismiss the pending litigation asserting a claim for fees. ? Further, Mr. Papetti explicitly cited all three causes of action within the contents of his complaint with the Board of Bar Overseers by identifying each one by docket number: #2106SC001 164; #2184CV2892; and #2184CV2892, the instant complaint before this court. Thus, while it is usual and general practice in the civil courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for parties to allow their counsel to appear on their behalf: in this particular matter, the plaintiffs wish to appear in person for this in-person hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. This complaint, and the other pending issues that these plaintiffs have with this defendant, present very serious matters to this court. While the parties’ dispute commenced with the dog named Buddy, those disputes are now much greater than simply a question of ownership of a dog and the associated costs for his care and maintenance. They present issues of subject matter jurisdiction of a court, questions concerning whether a judgment is void because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, questions concerning a fee owed to an attorney in ? These statements were made prior to the electronic filing of this complaint seeking to assert a lien for care and maintenance of the dog named Buddy and were memorialized in email correspondence with the plaintiffs’ prior counsel. These statements by counsel for the defendant, threatening BBO action against Tracy Firicano during settlement negotiations, also comprised one of the grounds in support of Tracy and Leo Firicano’s motion for sanctions against Christopher Papetti’s counsel, previously filed in the West Roxbury Division. 7 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and now, serious issues of alleged ethical breaches by that attorney. The plaintiffs are not able to appear in person on September 1, 2022, but given the serious nature of this litigation, both singularly, as well as combined with the other ongoing matters, they wish to have an opportunity to appear in person before this court. Certainly, the defendant has made clear his intentions to attend the hearing in person. See, affidavit of Christopher A. Perruzzi, annexed hereto as Exhibit “1,” par. 4 (By defense counsel: “I know our client has already adjusted his schedule to be able to attend on 9/1.”), and accordingly, the plaintiffs’ inability to similarly appear in person would create an imbalance relative to the hearing. However, on September 1, 2022, they would only be able to appear before this court on a virtual basis due to an annual vacation which they take to celebrate their wedding anniversary and plaintiff Tracy Firicano’s birthday. See, Superior Court standing order 1-22, effective September 1, 2022, annexed hereto as Exhibit “2”, and specifically paragraph 5. The plaintiffs are sensitive to the fact that Mr. Papetti is, upon information and belief, treating this litigation as a serious matter. They are also sensitive to this court’s calendar which, upon information and belief, subsequent to the Covid pandemic, is extremely backlogged. Nevertheless, and in light of these very real issues which stand as justification to allow this hearing to stand on September 1, 2022, the plaintiffs respectfully request that this court grant a continuance in order that they may appear in person; alternatively, they seek leave to appear virtually before this court. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs, Tracy Firicano and Leo Firicano respectfully request that this court grant a brief continuance on the hearing regarding the defendant’s motion to dismiss. %7, Respectfully Counse! iG le tiffs, d, fi oH Perruzzi Law Off r ones 273 1266 Furnace Brook Pkwy., Suite 400 Quincy, MA 02169 (617) 586-0883 caperruzzi@perruzzilaw.com Exhibit 1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT SUFFOLK SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. TRACY FIRICANO and LEO FIRICANO, Plaintiffs Vs. CHRISTOPHER PAPETTI, Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER A. PERRUZZI I, Christopher A. Perruzzi, under oath do depose and say: 1 I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and ] am in good standing. My principal place of business is located at 1266 Furnace Brook Pkwy., Suite 400, Quincy, MA 02169. I am counsel to the plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter. After receiving notice of the hearing scheduled for September 1, 2022, at 2:00 PM, I communicated with counsel for the defendant, and requested a continuance of this hearing. In response, I received communication from his counsel of record on Monday, August 8, , 2022 which stated: “We received your letter. | Do you have a conflict or what is the reason for your continuance request? And what timeframe are you proposing for the new hearing? I can then run it by our client. I know our client has already adjusted his schedule to be able to attend on 9/1.” I replied to that email correspondence on Tuesday, August 9, 2022 in the following manner: Good afternoon, with respect to whether or not ] have a "conflict" on September 1, I have a probable cause hearing in the Dedham District Court the following day which, given the nature of the charges, requires some witness preparation. I'm only looking for a weeklong continuance, I recognize that your client wishes to have the motion to dismiss heard as expeditiously as possible. My next available date would be September 8, 2022. Please advise whether, given my representations, you would be amenable to a brief continuance to September 8, or whether you desire that I file a motion to continue this matter subject to opposition procedure. Thank you.” On August 9, 2022 counsel replied: “ “Thank you for the additional information. Can you call the court to make sure their schedule is open for other days early September? If we can get a hearing by mid-September than I can agree to the request. If the Court says they are booked until October or November then I will not be able to agree.” After advising that I would inquire of the court, on Thursday, August 11, 2022, I sent further email communication to counsel for the defendant, stating as follows: “Good afternoon, I spoke with the clerk in the session for this particular matter. The earliest date for the rescheduling of the defendant's motion to dismiss would be October 20, 2022. The next available dates are October 25, October 26, and October 27.” Following the issuance of that email, I received your email correspondence from counsel for the defendant, stating as follows: “Thank you for following up with the clerk. As previously noted, we will not be able to agree to the continuance because of the long period until the next available date. “ With respect to my court calendar for August 31, 2022, my calendar on Masscourts.org confirms that I have 9 pretrial hearings on August 31. That same calendar also confirms that on September 2, 2022. I have a probable cause hearing in the matter of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Cleyton Rafael Ortiz, Dedham District Court Docket no. 2254 CR 752. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 17" day, st, 2022. oy, Ch ‘topher A. P UuzZI Exhibit 2 Superior Court Standing Order 1-22 Videoconferencing of Court Events Applicable to All Courts 1, Introduction This Standing Order is effective September 1, 2022, and rescinds and supersedes Superior Court Standing Order 1-20, which became effective February 1, 2020, and Superior Court Standing Order 4— 21, which became effective July 12, 2021. This Standing Order shall remain in effect until further order of the court. Consistent with constitutional, statutory, and other applicable rights, and in the interest of justice, certain criminal and civil proceedings may be conducted by videoconference pursuant to this Standing Order. 2. Criminal Cases A, Presumptive Videoconference Hearings Hearings in criminal cases are presumptively held by videoconference for: bail hearings for persons in custody who waive physical presence in the courtroom; bail reviews and non-testimonial hearings for reviews of G.L. c. 276, § 58A dangerousness determinations for persons in custody; hearings on G.L. c. 276, § 58A motions without witnesses; status and scheduling conferences; discovery conferences, including hearings on non-evidentiary motions (where a hearing is warranted, and defendant waives physical presence); pretrial conferences; and probation status conferences. B. Presumptive In-Person Hearings Hearings in criminal cases are presumptively held in person for: initial bail hearings for persons not in custody; 58A dangerousness hearings with witnesses; motions to dismiss and suppress; plea conferences and plea hearings pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 12; Daubert-Lanigan hearings; final trial conferences, including motions in limine; trials; sentencing hearings; and initial and final probation violation hearings. 1 C. Arraignments There is no presumptive method for conducting an arraignment. Judges are encouraged to conduct arraignments by videoconference where the defendant is in custody and waives physical presence, absent reasons for the defendant and counsel to be physically present. D. Conversion of Presumptive In-Person Hearings to Videoconference Hearings in Criminal Cases A criminal hearing designated as presumptively in person pursuant to this Standing Order may be held by videoconference in a judge’s discretion, consistent with constitutional, statutory, and other applicable rights. A judge should consider the nature of the proceeding, including whether it is testimonial, evidentiary, or requires a credibility determination; any agreement of the parties; and waiver of any right to physical presence. 3. Civil Cases A, Presumptive Videoconference Hearings Hearings in civil cases are presumptively held by videoconference for: initial case management conferences; discovery disputes, motions to compel, motions for protective order (if hearing warranted); scheduling conferences; final pretrial conferences; motions to dismiss; motions to amend complaint (if hearing warranted); motions for default judgment/assessment of damages; and motions to set aside default (if hearing warranted). Medical malpractice tribunals are presumptively held by videoconference. B. Presumptive In-Person Hearings Hearings in civil cases are presumptively held in person for: injunction hearings, including ex parte motions for injunctions; hearings on equitable motions, including motions for attachment, trustee process, reach and apply; proceedings involving credibility determinations; motions for summary judgment; Daubert-Lanigan hearings; final trial conferences, including motions in limine; and trials. C. Conversion of Presumptive In-Person Hearings to Videoconference Hearings in Civil Cases A civil hearing designated as presumptively in person pursuant to this Standing Order may be held by videoconference in a judge’s discretion and for good cause. 4 Conversion of Presumptive Videoconference Hearing to In-Person Hearing A judge may order that a criminal or civil hearing designated as presumptively held by videoconference pursuant to this Standing Order be held in person if the judge determines that such a hearing is necessary for fair and efficient resolution of a matter. 5 Hybrid Proceedings A “hybrid” proceeding, where some participants appear in person and others appear by videoconference, may be held on request and in the discretion of the court, and consistent with constitutional, statutory, and other applicable rights. Any participant who requests to appear by videoconference at an in-person proceeding shall have no grounds to object to any other participant appearing in person. 6. Self-Represented Litigants For any videoconference hearing involving a self-represented litigant with limited access to, or limited facility with, videoconference technology, the court shall facilitate participation by videoconference or shall offer an alternative means of participation. 7 Public Access Information on public access to virtual proceedings shall be available from the Superior Court Clerks’ Offices. So ordered, /s/ Heidi Brieger Heidi E. Brieger Chief Justice of the Superior Court Adopted: August __, 2022 Effective: September 1, 2022