Preview
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
24
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT ?
DOCKET NO, 2281CV04359
SUSAN CHEUNG, AND Mar 16th 2023
CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG
Plaintiff, . RECEIVED
ve
3/16/23
THOMAS B PUSCHAK and
CAROL PUSCHAK
Defendant.
)
MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS SUSAN CHEUNG AND CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG TO
STRIKE THE DEFENDANTS MARCH 2ND MOTION AND
AFFIDAVIT; STRIKE ALL AFFIDAVITS DEFENDANTS FILED NOT IN
COMPLIANT WITH SUPERIOT RULE 9A
The Plaintiffs Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung strike the March 2“ motion and its
affidavits filed on March 10" by defendants Thomas Puschak and Carol Puschak. The motion
and affidavits are not in complaints with Superior court rule 9A and Civil rule 15 for court order.
the defendants did not include all the oppositions and exhibits that Plaintiffs mailed to them, and
they did not wait for 14 days to inchide all the Plaintiffs oppositions to file Affidavits, Plaintiff
receive their motion on March 6", Defendants waited for 4 days, then they filed Affidavits
without all oppositions and exhibits, their motion and all their Affidavits do not follow Superior
Rule 9A required format:
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
(5) Format and length of all papers except exhibits
°
All papers addressed by this Rule 9A. except exhibits. must conform £ the
following requirements:
(i) Paper size. Papers must be on 8 1/2" by 11" paper.
(ii) Typeface. Papers must be in 12-point, double-spaced type. The caption,
footnotes, and indented quotations may be single-spaced in 12-point type.
(iii) Title. The title of each document must appear on the first page next to or
below the caption.
(iv) Length. The memorandum supporting the motion or cross-motion and the
memorandum in opposition may not exceed 20 pages, and the reply may not
exceed 5 pages. Any appendix permitted by Superior Court Rule 9C(b) is not
included in the page limit. Nor is an addendum that sets forth, verbatim and
without argument, pertinent excerpts from key documents tatutes, regulations
or the like.
(v) Email addresses. Uach attorney or self-represented party filing motion or
opposition papers must include his or her email address on the papers. or certify
in the filing that he or she does not have an email address.
And
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
Civil Rule 15 provides that the court, upon motion of a party, may allow the party to
serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events
postdating the pleading sought to be supplemented.
The Court should not allow this communication in Superior court, Plaintiffs request
defendants withdraw the motions and all affidavits that did not follow Superior court Rule 9A.
The Plaintiff's
Susan Cheung Sweau 2
Christopher Cheung Chaustapher Cheung.
Phone: 7816401770
Email: susandingcheung@gimail.com
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
EXHIBIT
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
Superior Court Rule 9A; Civil Motions
(Applicable to civil actions)
(a) Motion Practice and Format of Papers.
(1) Motions. A moving party must serve with the motion, which shall contain a request for a
hearing (if desired), (1) a separate memorandum stating the reasons, including supporting
authorities, that the motion should be granted and (2) affidavits or other exhibits evidencing
facts on which the motion is based: These papers are referred to below as the “Motion
Pape .” "The moving party all initiate a conference with the other parties for all dispo tive
and overy motions subject to Rule 9C, Motions for summary judgment must also comply
with section (b)(5), below.
(2) Oppositions to Motions. A party opposing 4 motion may serve (1) a memorandum in
opposition that includes a statement of reasons, with supporting authorities, that the motion
should not be allowed, together with a request for a hearing (if desired) and (2) affidavits or
other exhibits evidencing facts on which the oppos ‘ion is based, as well as (3) any cros:
motion (including but not limited to a motion to strike) and (4) memorandum and affidavits
supporting the cross-motion. These papers are referred to below as the “Opposition.”
(3) Reply/Opposition to Motion to Strike. The moving party may file a reply memorandum
Limited to matters raised in the opposition that were not and could not reasonably have been
anticipated and addressed in the moving party’s initial memorandum (Reply”). The moving
party may als fil af opposition to any motion to strike or cross-motion, No other reply or
surreply submi: n shall be filed without leave of court, which will be granted only in
exceptional circumstances,
(4) Facts Verified by Affidavit. The court need not consider any motion, opposition, or reply
6 based on facts unless the facts are verified by affidavit, are otherwise apparent in the record,
or are agreed to in a writing signed by the interested parties or their counsel.
) Format and Length of all Papers Except Exhibits, All papers addressed by this Rule
9A, except exhibits, must conform to the following requirements:
(i) Paper size. Papers must be on 8 1/2" by 11" paper.
(ii) Typeface, Papers must be in 12-point, double-spaced type. The caption, footnotes, and
indented quotations may be single-spaced in 12-point type.
(iti) Tit The dle of each document must appear on the first page next to or below the
caption.
(iv) Length. The memorandum supporting the motion or eross-motion and the
memorandum in opposition may not exceed 20 pages, and the reply may not exceed 5
pages. Any appendix permitted by Superior Court Rule 9C(b) is not included in the page
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
limit. Nor is an addendum that sets forth, verbatim and without argument, pertinent
excerpts from key documents, statutes, regulations or the like. :
(vy) Email Addresses, Each attorney or self-represented party filing motion or opposition
papers must include his or her email address on the papers, or certify in the filing that he or
she does not have an email address.
(6) Leave of court. Advance leave of court is required to exceed the page limit or file a
surreply. All requests for leave of court must: (1) be captioned as a pleading. (2) not exceed
one page in length (not counting the caption and title), (3) state the grounds and specific
relief sought (¢.g., a specific proposed new page limi) and (4) include a certificate of service.
The request must be sent directly to the session clerk, ATTN: Session Judge. The request
must be served on all other parties, but the court need not await a response to such request
before ruling. Any leave granted to the moving party for additional pages applies to the
opposing party’s memorandum as well, unless otherwise ordered. The tide of any surreply
and any memorandum exceeding 20 pages must note the date on which leave was allowed.
(7) No Automatic Extension of Time Pending Leave of Court. A request {or leave of
court under Paragraph (a)(6) does not extend the date for filing the Rule 9A Package (See
Rule 9A(b)(2)) to which it relates, unless the court orders otherwise or all parties agree.
(8) Attorney Certifications. All dispositive and discovery motions shall include the
certificate required by Superior Court Rule 9C.
(b) Procedure for Serving and Filing Motions.
(1) Service.
(i) General: All Motion Papers, Oppositions, and Replies must be served on all parties
and filed with the clerk in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Paragraph (b).
Compliance with this Paragraph shall constitute compliance with the “reasonable time”
provisions of the first sentence of Mass. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1).
(ii) When Service on Non-Parties is Required: Papers must be served on specifically
named non-parties in compliance with this Rule if (a) the Motion seeks to add the non-
party as a party to the case; (b) the Motion seeks an order or other relief against the non-
party; (c) the issues affect the personal information or other interests of the non-party.
The non-party need not be served, however, if excused by a court order issued in advance
for cause or if'a statute or rule expressly authorizes ex parte relief.
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
> Legal & justicegen sstice Laws & Regulations 9 > Massachusetts eules of court and stand! nioruie® vp
b
RU o TL PROCEGL
Civil Procedure Rule 15: Amended and supplemental
pleadings
EFFECTIVE DATE:
OVO O74
CONTACT
Trial Court Law Libraries
Online
Library locations and phone numbers yvial-courtiaw-library-locations}
Chat with a law librarian online e-det: at-oy text-with-adaw-librarian}
Email a reference librarian: masslawlib@gmail.com (naitomassiawlib@gmail.com}
(a) Amendments (#-4-ame iments}
{b) Amendments to conform to the evidence t#-b-amendments-to-confornetothe-evidence)
{ct} Relation back of amendments (#-c-reiatinn-bar nendments)
{d} Supplemental pleadings (-0-supplemental-pleadings)
Reporter's notes (éreporter-s-notes)
Downloads (#downioads)
Contact (econracty
(a) Amendments
Aparty may amend his pleading ance as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served and priar to entry
of an order of dismissal or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been
placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend his
pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so
requires. A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original
pleading or within 10 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be the longer, unless the court
othe 2.0 ‘der
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
(b) Amendments to conform to the evidence
When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or imptied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all
respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings, Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to
conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be rade upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
fallure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. ff evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that
it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when
the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the
admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits, The court may grant a
continuance to enable the objecting party ta meet such evidence,
(c) Relation back of amendments
Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arase out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth
or attempted to be set forth in the o inal pleading, the amendment (including an amendment changing a party) relates back
to the original pleading.
(d) Supplemental pleadings
Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a
supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading
sought to be supplerer ste rte d. Permission may be granted even though the original pleading is defective in its statement of a
claim for relief or defense. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party plead to the supplemental pleading it shall so
order, specifying the time therefor.
Reporter's notes
{1973) The first part of Rule 15(a) allows a party to amend his pleading prior to entry of an order of dismissal, under certain
circumstances, once, as a matter of course, The circumstances are: (1) the pleading is one with respect to which ar sponsive
pleading is permitted (see Rule F(a) yrutes-of. civil procedure/civil-procedure-rute-7-pleadings-allowed form-of-motions#t-a-ghead and no
responsive pleading has yet been served; or (2) the pieading is one to which no r ponsive pleading is permitted (see Rule
7a) (erutes-of civil: procedur vikprocedure eule-7 ngs-aliowed-form-of motionsif-a-pleadings}) and the action has not yet been placed on
the trial calendar, In the first case, no time limit is imposed; in the second, amendment must take place v thin 20 days after
service of the original pleading
Rule 15(a) is the same as Federal Rule 15{a) except that it also specifical ly limits the right of amendment as a matter of course to
the situation where there has not been an order of dismissal.
Because a motion is not considered a pleading within the meaning of Rule 15 (see Rule
Haye fes ae pre refciviley furesrule-?, dinved-form-of- mot f-apteadings)), Federal Rule 15(a) if read literally, would
permit a plaintiff to amend his pleading, without leave of court, even after the Court had granted a motion to dismiss or a
motion for summary judgment,
Most of the federal courts which have considered the matter have held that a motion is not a pleading within the meaning of
Rule 15(@). Thus a mere filing of @ motion to dismiss does not prevent the plaintiff from amending his compiaint as a matter of
right. See Keene Lumber Co. v. Leventhal tp:l/scholar.goo comischolar_case?case=399 91693168 2), 165 F.2d 815 (1st Cir,
1948). It ls however unclear whether the plaintiff should be entitled to arnend his ¢ complaint as a matter of right after a motion to
ismiss or a motion for summary judgment has been granted. The Court in Keene Lumber Co. v.
Leventhal tapy/scholar.qoagle.convschalar_case?tase= 19451 6916931640032) held that the plaintiff's right to amend as a matter of course
ended with the granting of the motion to dismiss; so have most courts which have considered the matter, There are however
enough rary decisions to cause the matter to be handied by a specific provision in Rule 15(a). See Hreier v. Northern
California Bowling Props. Ass'n (hep é/scholar.gongle.com/sctiolar, cas ase 306620165441) 23682 16 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir.
1963), Peckham v. Scanlon (btipv/acholar googie.convschotar case? >5 344922348461 722), 241 F.2d 761 (7th Cir, 1957).
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
The right to amend as a matter of course should not extend beyond the granting of a motion to dismiss or a motion for
summary judgment, Because the plaintiff, who has already had an opportunity to amend prior to the disposition of the motion,
nonethele’ chose to stand (unsuccessfully) on his original pleading, the defendant who successfully moved against such
pleading should at the least be allowed to oppose the amendment. This does not burden the plaintiff unduly, since even if leave
of court is made a requirement, such leave will be liberally granted. See Moore, Federal Practice § OF , (2d ec 1968). And
even if leave ta amend is not granted, the plaintiff may still move for relief under Rules
59(0) vrate ivi-procedur pe enroute w-new-trials-amendment-objudgr e -e rotion-to-alt amner ginny or 6O(b)}
of-cvitpre od ilsproce e-ule-SG-reliet-fromyjudgment-or-orderd-bm inadvertence-ex: neq oly 6 sd-evidence-tr ete
. These rules contain time limits, while present post-d missa! practice under Rule 15(a) does not,
The second part of Rule 1S(a} deals with amendments by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Rule 15{a)
specifically provides that “leave shail be freely given when justice so requires.”
In Foman v. Davis (rep: scholar. googie.com/scholat case?case=16110275248056499298), 371 US. 178, 83 S.Ct. 22 9 L.£d.2d 222 (4962),
the Court strongly reaffirmed this mandate.
Rule 7 5(a) clearly alters prior Massachusetts practice. Amendment as a-matter of right did not exist in Ma chusetts. See G.L. ¢.
231, 885 1-56. Mations to amend were ddressed to the discretion of the trial judge. Reilly v. Revere Racing Ass'n
Ine. sca Lease ofa A 763.1 349 Mass, 763, 208 N.E.2d 232 (1965). Thus an exception to the denial of a
motion to amend merely rai the question of abuse of discretion by the trial judge, Magalatta v,
Millard (hupyine cases.convcases/sic/346f346mass59t him, 346 Mass. 591, 195 N.E.2d 324 (1964),
Under the interpretation of Federal Rule 15(a) in Keene Lumber, supra, the plaintiff has the right to one amendment, without
leave of court, even though the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Rule 4 a) changes Massachusetts law in another material respect. Under prior practice an amendment setting out new causes
of action could not be allowed. Boston Trust Funds Inc. v. Henderson thitp://masscases.camve, SJB 1/34 T MaSS7I0, ai}, Mass.
730, 170 N.E.2d 318 (1960); Beckwith v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (httpy/masscases.com/caseslsjn/354 4 Mimass766.inre), 354
fe
Ma: 766, 238 N 2d 364 (1968). No such limitation ists under Rule 15. Indeed, Rule 15(d) permits the court, on terms, to
allow a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out further transactions or occurrences or events which ha’ } appened
since the date of the pleading soughtto be supplemented. Previously, Massachuset! aw did not allow an amendment to a
deciara ion attempting to introduce a ci @ of action that did not exist when the action was brought, Sharpe v, Metrapolitar
Transit Authority (ney massa: om‘eases/sj/32
7/327 masst71.hunt), 327 Mass, 171,97 N.E 2d 399 (1951).
Rule 15(b), which tracks Federal Rule 15(bj, does not significantly change Massachusetts procedure. Issues, to whose triai the
parties expressly or impliedly consent, will, even if not raised by the pleadings, be treated in all respects as if they had been so
raised. Although such amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence may be made at any time, failure to amend does
not affect the result of the trial.
ff a party objects at the triai to evidence on the ground that {tis not within the issues made by the pleadings, Rule 15(b) enjoins
the court freely to allow amendment unless the objecting party satisfies the court that admission of such evideni e would
prejudice his case on the merits. A continuance may be granted to the objecting party to meet the evidence.
This rule differs slightly from previous M. ssachuset practic Although language of Mass. G. © 234, 8
51 (htipsvimaiegistature.gowl a*awit rtlli/Fiuell/Chapter: 3
ction5t} (“at any time before judgment’) appears sufficiently
broad to permit the trial judge to allow amendment during trial where an ob} ion is made to the adr on of certain
evidence, the Court in Lewis v. Russell (napumasscases.comvcases’sicf30 Hama: ihtnh, 304 Mass. 41, 45, 22 N.E.2d 606, 608-609
(1939) held that defective pleading cannot be cured merely by reference to the plaintiff’s evidence, But even in Lewis, supra, the
Court concluded: "T: decision does not affect the ¢ wer of the Superior Court in its discretion to allow the defendant to amend
her answer on motion filed before judgment if, under all of the circumstances, justice appears to require such amendment,”
Rule 15(c) provides far the relation back of amendments whenever the claim or defense asserted arose out of the conduct,
transaction or occurrence attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, This provision ties directly to the statute of
imitations.
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
Under Federal Ruie 15{c) an amendrnent changing the party against whom a claim is asserted may reiate back (and thus
preclude a statute of limitations defense) if the claim in the amended pleading arase out of the conduct, transaction or
occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading and, within the period provided by law for commencing
the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that
he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake
concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him,
Massachusetts practice 5 more liberal than Federal Rule 15(c) in allowing amendments adding or st bstituting party defendants
after expiration of the period of limitations The Massachusetts rule is set out in detail in Wadsworth v. Boston Gas
Company thtepy/massca erica fh. na! 1), 352 Mass. 86, 88-89, 223 N.E.2d 807, 809-810 (1967) in the following
language:
ithas ¢ n been said that the running of the statute of limitations is not a reason for denying an amendment and may
furn ha reason for allowing it. johnson v. Carrollth {psl/masscases.com/cases/s|e/272/2/2inasst 34. nu tb, 72 Mass, 134, 138, 172 N.E,
85; Peterson v. Cadogan thupwim onn/cases $3/513mass133.h0ml), 313 Mass. 133, 134, 46 N.E.2d 517, and cases cited, In
general, the law in this Commonwealth with respect to am: ndments is more liberal than elsewhere, and cases from other
jurisdictions are not in point, Ne: fy v. Beard (hepyime: me 26; ass 332 fy nih, 226 Mass, 332, 334, 175 N,E. 420.
see Ideal Financing Assn. Inc. v. McPhail thttp-v/mass s.comfcase 320/326 Lhiey, 320 Mas 1, 70% 2d 341
“There is ample authority for the proposition that where an action has been commenced befo! the statute of limitations has
run, a plaintiff may be allowed to substitute one defendant for another after the statute of limitations has run against the
proposed substitute defendant. McLaughlin v. West End St. Ry. (aurpmasseases. cage jer 186) BGmass hem}, 186 Mass, 150,
51, 71 NE. 317, Genga v. Director Gen, of Raitroads dntavymass ses.com/cases/s B42: 43enass 104 by }, 243 Mass. 101, 104, 137
N.E, 637, and cases cited. After the amendment has been allowed and the defendant brought ir ‘© court by due process, the
substitution relates back to the date of the writ and makes the substituted defendant a party from that date, Johnson v.
Carrall nepysmasstiases.comycasesisjer? a4.hun, 272 Mass, 134, 137, 172 N.C. 85. We ho difference in principle
between permitting a plaintiffto substitute a defendant and permitting a plaintiff to add a defendant. See Cohen v.
Levy thup: asscases.comfeasesssie/224/224m atent}, 221 Mass. 336, 337, 108 NE, 1074; McPherson v. Boston Edison
Co. ouitnasscases.cor je 336733 masso4.homh, 336 Mass. 94,97, 142 N.E.2d 758. The effect in both cases is that a different
defendant is ¢ led upon to defend the action. We hold, therefore, that the priety of allowing the amendment in both cases ts
governed by the same rules.”
For statutory requirements governing amendment of names in Superior Court divorce proceedings, see G.L. c. 208 § 40
10.
Rule 15(d) provides that the court, upon motion of a party, may allow the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth
transactions, occurrences, or events postdating the pleading sought to be supplemented. This ‘iberalizes Mas: husetts law,
which did not allow an amendment to sustain a new cause of action not intended when the writ was drawn, See Church v.
Boylston and Woodbury Cafe Co. (h pvimasscases.com/cases/s) S218 BIAES2 ihen), 278 Mass. 237, 105 N.E, 883 (1914),
Downloads
Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (hips:Avww.nass.govidocimassachusetts-rutes-of-civil-proceduresdownioady
(English, POF 1.91 MB)
Contact
Trial Court Law Libraries
Online
Library locations and phone numbers (/rial-courtaw-librarytocations)
Chat with a law librarian online service de fs a
listers textwith-a-law-liprarian)
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359°
&
Block @ ul yi 1oOn SS
Acoottling to the APA manual, quotations that are 40 words or more are considered block
quotations and are formatted differently than regular quotations,
The follawing is a list of the unique formatting that is needed for block quotations:
4. Block quotations start on their own line.
2. The entire block quotation is indented 0.5 Inches, the same as the Indentation for a
new paragraph, and is double spaced.
3. Block quotations are not surrounded by any quotation marks.
4, The punctuation at the end of the block quotation goes before the citation.
5. The ending citation is included on the last line of the block quotation
6. The text after the block quotation begins on its own line, with no indentation. You
should not end a paragraph with a block quotation because any quotation you use as
evidence in your writing should be followed by analysis in your own words as part of
the same paragraph.
Note that block quotations should be used sparingly, Block quotations tend to take over the
voice of the paper, often overshadowing the voice of the author with that source's voice.
lnstead, if at ail possible, try to quate smaller portions of the piece of text and incorporate
these into your own voice. This practice will nat only allow you to establish your voic 3 5 the
author but also shaw the way you are engaging with the information, not just reporting it
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
Bhoets ples
nple #4
‘Today, digital cameras have practically taken over photography. As Johnson
(2010)
explained,
Digital cameras now make up 90% of all camera sales at the leading
electronic stores. This increase in sales can be partially attributed to the
widespread use of email and social networking, which has encouraged the
sharing of digital photos. (p. 23)
Johnson further noted that, even more than with the shift to digital cameras, the increasing
use of phones and iPods that have built-in cameras has replacad the use of film cameras.
Computer users often disagree about which operating system is best: Mac or PC. Oyler
(2010) stated that one operating system is not better than the other, but that one may be
better suited for different purposes than the other. She explained by saying that
Maes are often the best option for users who wish to work with video or picture
manipulation. Macs are also very user friendly, which may benefit consumers
who are new to computers. PCs, however, run Microsoft Office Suite the best,
Therefore, students might find that a PC is their best option because it can run
Microsoft Word and PowerPoint the smoothest. (Oyler, 2010, p. 48)
Conversely, Jones (2010) disagreed with the statement that Macs work with graphics such
as video and pictures better than PCs, stating that PCs can be modified to work as well as
Mac:
fle: 4 BR
ee Ooh
dlock Quotations
Knowledge Check
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
=“— wessesssessses "COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss, SUPERIOR COURT :
DOCKET NO, 2281CV04359
SUSAN CHEUNG, AND Mar. 10th 2023
CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG
Plaintiff,
Y
THOMAS B PUSCHAK and
CAROL PUSCHAK
Defendant.
)
OPPOSITIONS 2 TO MOTIONS OF DEFENDANTS THOMAS PUSCHAK AND
CAROL PUSCHAK TO STRIKE THE COMPLAINT OF THE PLAINTIFFS, SUSAN
CHEUNG AND CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE
12(e) ORDER
The Plaintiff Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung oppose motion filed by Defendants on
March 2"¢ 2023:
Plaintiffs Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung comply with the Superior court order
issued on Feb 17" 2023, Plaintiffs already informed the court that Amended complaint is
on the way.
The court order did not specify the date for the amended complaint to be submitted, the
plaintiffs should be able to submit the amended complaint within reasonable time.
The Defendants’ motion failed in compliant with Superior Court Rule 9A in procedure
format,
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
‘Phe Motion substance is also not in compliance with “Civil Procedure Rule 15:
Amended and supplemental pleadings” law
5. The Plaintiffs request that the defendants dismiss their above invalid motion, the
defendants can redo it in order to be in compliant with Rule 9A, and comply with
“Civil Procedure Rule 15: Amended and supplemental pleadings” law
The Plaintiffs
<—
Susan Cheung __ eae Heung
Christopher Cheung, At Opiate. (__.
Phone: 7816401770
Email susandingcheung@email.com
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUS: t TS
MIDDLESEX. SS SUPERIOR COURT :
DOC 2277CVOT167R.
-
SUS § CHEUNG and CHRISTOPHER
CH NG
Plaintiffs,
THOMAS PUSCHAK and CAROL
PUSCHAK
Defendants.
.
MOTION OF THE DEFENDANTS, THOMAS PUSCHAK AND CAROL PUSHAK TO
STRIK THE COMPLAINT OF THE AUNTIFES, SUSAN CHEUNG AND
CHRISTOPHER CH NG FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 124) ORDER.
NOW come the defendants. Thomas Puschak, D.M.D. and Carol Puschak and
respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike the Complaint of the plaintiffs, Susan
Cheung, and Christopher Cheung for failure to comply with court order pursuant to
Mass.R.Civ.P. 12¢e). In support of this Motion, the defendants’ states as follows:
I Mass. Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) states as follows:
If the motion is granied and the ord raf the court is
‘ TALS
we
rhe wet Ve not obeved within. 10-deys-afier notice of the order
or within such time as the court may fix, the court
u bg iy
thet
may strike the. pleading to which the motion was ye
yar ‘ \ ot
directed or make such order as it deems just. vf
4 pFIN
Defendants, Thomas Puschak and Carol Puschak filed a Motion to strike and Motion for
more definitive statement along with Plainti *s opposition on February 15, 023. ee
On ev 17 the court allowed Plaintiffs Motions to strike and ation for more |
| pe
we att
definitive statement, Count 1, a ph 12 of Count 2. nd Count 5 were struck from the
complaint pursuant in Meiss, Cie { Ch. 231 §60L. See Exhibit A. Lau
1 ge
4 On the ro TOUS Piiatiis w orderect. ursuant to rule 12(¢), to file a more Ko le nA
\ definite statement ‘uy : forth the Jegal claims the plaintif HET pay FOU the legal
i
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
,
\
theories tinder which they ses to recover This order was made as to paragraph 15-19 of Count
2, Count 3, and Count 4. See exhibit A.
Nol
i
5. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the issued court order pursuant to Rule 2K within} Couph
(bu tot
the allowed 10 days. Defendants have further received no communication to date trom Plalutiffs
fat!Wesusan Cheung and/or Christopher Cheung regarding the filing of amore definitive statement. J Wit He Spey
A Je ott
oye { wah
\
WHE! FORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court strike the complaint of
ule YF
A 4 the plaintiffs, Susan Cheung and ¢ istopher Cheung, for violations of the February 17, 2023
w
Wwe
Court order pursuant fo Rule 12(¢).
Respectfully submitted
The Defendants.
Phomas Puschak D.M.D. and Carol
Puschak
By their attorneys,
s/ Vineent P. Dunn, Exq.
Vincent P. Dunn, BBO. 1034
Juliana M Mieles, BBO: #7075 16
Hamel, Marcin, Dunn, Reardon & Shea
BC.
350 Lincoln Street. Suite 110
Hinghar MA 02043
(617) 0007
vdunn@hmdrslaw.com
Dated: March 2 23 jmiele: hmdrslaw.com
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2281CV04359
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT ®
DOCKET NO. 2281CV04359
SUSAN CHEUNG and CHRISTOPHER
CHEUNG
laintiffs.
v
THOMAS PUSCHAK and CAROL
Preview
Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 24 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT ? DOCKET NO, 2281CV04359 SUSAN CHEUNG, AND Mar 16th 2023 CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG Plaintiff, . RECEIVED ve 3/16/23 THOMAS B PUSCHAK and CAROL PUSCHAK Defendant. ) MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS SUSAN CHEUNG AND CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANTS MARCH 2ND MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT; STRIKE ALL AFFIDAVITS DEFENDANTS FILED NOT IN COMPLIANT WITH SUPERIOT RULE 9A The Plaintiffs Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung strike the March 2“ motion and its affidavits filed on March 10" by defendants Thomas Puschak and Carol Puschak. The motion and affidavits are not in complaints with Superior court rule 9A and Civil rule 15 for court order. the defendants did not include all the oppositions and exhibits that Plaintiffs mailed to them, and they did not wait for 14 days to inchide all the Plaintiffs oppositions to file Affidavits, Plaintiff receive their motion on March 6", Defendants waited for 4 days, then they filed Affidavits without all oppositions and exhibits, their motion and all their Affidavits do not follow Superior Rule 9A required format: Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 (5) Format and length of all papers except exhibits ° All papers addressed by this Rule 9A. except exhibits. must conform £ the following requirements: (i) Paper size. Papers must be on 8 1/2" by 11" paper. (ii) Typeface. Papers must be in 12-point, double-spaced type. The caption, footnotes, and indented quotations may be single-spaced in 12-point type. (iii) Title. The title of each document must appear on the first page next to or below the caption. (iv) Length. The memorandum supporting the motion or cross-motion and the memorandum in opposition may not exceed 20 pages, and the reply may not exceed 5 pages. Any appendix permitted by Superior Court Rule 9C(b) is not included in the page limit. Nor is an addendum that sets forth, verbatim and without argument, pertinent excerpts from key documents tatutes, regulations or the like. (v) Email addresses. Uach attorney or self-represented party filing motion or opposition papers must include his or her email address on the papers. or certify in the filing that he or she does not have an email address. And Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 Civil Rule 15 provides that the court, upon motion of a party, may allow the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events postdating the pleading sought to be supplemented. The Court should not allow this communication in Superior court, Plaintiffs request defendants withdraw the motions and all affidavits that did not follow Superior court Rule 9A. The Plaintiff's Susan Cheung Sweau 2 Christopher Cheung Chaustapher Cheung. Phone: 7816401770 Email: susandingcheung@gimail.com Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 EXHIBIT Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 Superior Court Rule 9A; Civil Motions (Applicable to civil actions) (a) Motion Practice and Format of Papers. (1) Motions. A moving party must serve with the motion, which shall contain a request for a hearing (if desired), (1) a separate memorandum stating the reasons, including supporting authorities, that the motion should be granted and (2) affidavits or other exhibits evidencing facts on which the motion is based: These papers are referred to below as the “Motion Pape .” "The moving party all initiate a conference with the other parties for all dispo tive and overy motions subject to Rule 9C, Motions for summary judgment must also comply with section (b)(5), below. (2) Oppositions to Motions. A party opposing 4 motion may serve (1) a memorandum in opposition that includes a statement of reasons, with supporting authorities, that the motion should not be allowed, together with a request for a hearing (if desired) and (2) affidavits or other exhibits evidencing facts on which the oppos ‘ion is based, as well as (3) any cros: motion (including but not limited to a motion to strike) and (4) memorandum and affidavits supporting the cross-motion. These papers are referred to below as the “Opposition.” (3) Reply/Opposition to Motion to Strike. The moving party may file a reply memorandum Limited to matters raised in the opposition that were not and could not reasonably have been anticipated and addressed in the moving party’s initial memorandum (Reply”). The moving party may als fil af opposition to any motion to strike or cross-motion, No other reply or surreply submi: n shall be filed without leave of court, which will be granted only in exceptional circumstances, (4) Facts Verified by Affidavit. The court need not consider any motion, opposition, or reply 6 based on facts unless the facts are verified by affidavit, are otherwise apparent in the record, or are agreed to in a writing signed by the interested parties or their counsel. ) Format and Length of all Papers Except Exhibits, All papers addressed by this Rule 9A, except exhibits, must conform to the following requirements: (i) Paper size. Papers must be on 8 1/2" by 11" paper. (ii) Typeface, Papers must be in 12-point, double-spaced type. The caption, footnotes, and indented quotations may be single-spaced in 12-point type. (iti) Tit The dle of each document must appear on the first page next to or below the caption. (iv) Length. The memorandum supporting the motion or eross-motion and the memorandum in opposition may not exceed 20 pages, and the reply may not exceed 5 pages. Any appendix permitted by Superior Court Rule 9C(b) is not included in the page Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 limit. Nor is an addendum that sets forth, verbatim and without argument, pertinent excerpts from key documents, statutes, regulations or the like. : (vy) Email Addresses, Each attorney or self-represented party filing motion or opposition papers must include his or her email address on the papers, or certify in the filing that he or she does not have an email address. (6) Leave of court. Advance leave of court is required to exceed the page limit or file a surreply. All requests for leave of court must: (1) be captioned as a pleading. (2) not exceed one page in length (not counting the caption and title), (3) state the grounds and specific relief sought (¢.g., a specific proposed new page limi) and (4) include a certificate of service. The request must be sent directly to the session clerk, ATTN: Session Judge. The request must be served on all other parties, but the court need not await a response to such request before ruling. Any leave granted to the moving party for additional pages applies to the opposing party’s memorandum as well, unless otherwise ordered. The tide of any surreply and any memorandum exceeding 20 pages must note the date on which leave was allowed. (7) No Automatic Extension of Time Pending Leave of Court. A request {or leave of court under Paragraph (a)(6) does not extend the date for filing the Rule 9A Package (See Rule 9A(b)(2)) to which it relates, unless the court orders otherwise or all parties agree. (8) Attorney Certifications. All dispositive and discovery motions shall include the certificate required by Superior Court Rule 9C. (b) Procedure for Serving and Filing Motions. (1) Service. (i) General: All Motion Papers, Oppositions, and Replies must be served on all parties and filed with the clerk in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Paragraph (b). Compliance with this Paragraph shall constitute compliance with the “reasonable time” provisions of the first sentence of Mass. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1). (ii) When Service on Non-Parties is Required: Papers must be served on specifically named non-parties in compliance with this Rule if (a) the Motion seeks to add the non- party as a party to the case; (b) the Motion seeks an order or other relief against the non- party; (c) the issues affect the personal information or other interests of the non-party. The non-party need not be served, however, if excused by a court order issued in advance for cause or if'a statute or rule expressly authorizes ex parte relief. Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 > Legal & justicegen sstice Laws & Regulations 9 > Massachusetts eules of court and stand! nioruie® vp b RU o TL PROCEGL Civil Procedure Rule 15: Amended and supplemental pleadings EFFECTIVE DATE: OVO O74 CONTACT Trial Court Law Libraries Online Library locations and phone numbers yvial-courtiaw-library-locations} Chat with a law librarian online e-det: at-oy text-with-adaw-librarian} Email a reference librarian: masslawlib@gmail.com (naitomassiawlib@gmail.com} (a) Amendments (#-4-ame iments} {b) Amendments to conform to the evidence t#-b-amendments-to-confornetothe-evidence) {ct} Relation back of amendments (#-c-reiatinn-bar nendments) {d} Supplemental pleadings (-0-supplemental-pleadings) Reporter's notes (éreporter-s-notes) Downloads (#downioads) Contact (econracty (a) Amendments Aparty may amend his pleading ance as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served and priar to entry of an order of dismissal or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within 10 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be the longer, unless the court othe 2.0 ‘der Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 (b) Amendments to conform to the evidence When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or imptied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings, Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be rade upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but fallure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. ff evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits, The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party ta meet such evidence, (c) Relation back of amendments Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arase out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the o inal pleading, the amendment (including an amendment changing a party) relates back to the original pleading. (d) Supplemental pleadings Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplerer ste rte d. Permission may be granted even though the original pleading is defective in its statement of a claim for relief or defense. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party plead to the supplemental pleading it shall so order, specifying the time therefor. Reporter's notes {1973) The first part of Rule 15(a) allows a party to amend his pleading prior to entry of an order of dismissal, under certain circumstances, once, as a matter of course, The circumstances are: (1) the pleading is one with respect to which ar sponsive pleading is permitted (see Rule F(a) yrutes-of. civil procedure/civil-procedure-rute-7-pleadings-allowed form-of-motions#t-a-ghead and no responsive pleading has yet been served; or (2) the pieading is one to which no r ponsive pleading is permitted (see Rule 7a) (erutes-of civil: procedur vikprocedure eule-7 ngs-aliowed-form-of motionsif-a-pleadings}) and the action has not yet been placed on the trial calendar, In the first case, no time limit is imposed; in the second, amendment must take place v thin 20 days after service of the original pleading Rule 15(a) is the same as Federal Rule 15{a) except that it also specifical ly limits the right of amendment as a matter of course to the situation where there has not been an order of dismissal. Because a motion is not considered a pleading within the meaning of Rule 15 (see Rule Haye fes ae pre refciviley furesrule-?, dinved-form-of- mot f-apteadings)), Federal Rule 15(a) if read literally, would permit a plaintiff to amend his pleading, without leave of court, even after the Court had granted a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, Most of the federal courts which have considered the matter have held that a motion is not a pleading within the meaning of Rule 15(@). Thus a mere filing of @ motion to dismiss does not prevent the plaintiff from amending his compiaint as a matter of right. See Keene Lumber Co. v. Leventhal tp:l/scholar.goo comischolar_case?case=399 91693168 2), 165 F.2d 815 (1st Cir, 1948). It ls however unclear whether the plaintiff should be entitled to arnend his ¢ complaint as a matter of right after a motion to ismiss or a motion for summary judgment has been granted. The Court in Keene Lumber Co. v. Leventhal tapy/scholar.qoagle.convschalar_case?tase= 19451 6916931640032) held that the plaintiff's right to amend as a matter of course ended with the granting of the motion to dismiss; so have most courts which have considered the matter, There are however enough rary decisions to cause the matter to be handied by a specific provision in Rule 15(a). See Hreier v. Northern California Bowling Props. Ass'n (hep é/scholar.gongle.com/sctiolar, cas ase 306620165441) 23682 16 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 1963), Peckham v. Scanlon (btipv/acholar googie.convschotar case? >5 344922348461 722), 241 F.2d 761 (7th Cir, 1957). Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 The right to amend as a matter of course should not extend beyond the granting of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, Because the plaintiff, who has already had an opportunity to amend prior to the disposition of the motion, nonethele’ chose to stand (unsuccessfully) on his original pleading, the defendant who successfully moved against such pleading should at the least be allowed to oppose the amendment. This does not burden the plaintiff unduly, since even if leave of court is made a requirement, such leave will be liberally granted. See Moore, Federal Practice § OF , (2d ec 1968). And even if leave ta amend is not granted, the plaintiff may still move for relief under Rules 59(0) vrate ivi-procedur pe enroute w-new-trials-amendment-objudgr e -e rotion-to-alt amner ginny or 6O(b)} of-cvitpre od ilsproce e-ule-SG-reliet-fromyjudgment-or-orderd-bm inadvertence-ex: neq oly 6 sd-evidence-tr ete . These rules contain time limits, while present post-d missa! practice under Rule 15(a) does not, The second part of Rule 1S(a} deals with amendments by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Rule 15{a) specifically provides that “leave shail be freely given when justice so requires.” In Foman v. Davis (rep: scholar. googie.com/scholat case?case=16110275248056499298), 371 US. 178, 83 S.Ct. 22 9 L.£d.2d 222 (4962), the Court strongly reaffirmed this mandate. Rule 7 5(a) clearly alters prior Massachusetts practice. Amendment as a-matter of right did not exist in Ma chusetts. See G.L. ¢. 231, 885 1-56. Mations to amend were ddressed to the discretion of the trial judge. Reilly v. Revere Racing Ass'n Ine. sca Lease ofa A 763.1 349 Mass, 763, 208 N.E.2d 232 (1965). Thus an exception to the denial of a motion to amend merely rai the question of abuse of discretion by the trial judge, Magalatta v, Millard (hupyine cases.convcases/sic/346f346mass59t him, 346 Mass. 591, 195 N.E.2d 324 (1964), Under the interpretation of Federal Rule 15(a) in Keene Lumber, supra, the plaintiff has the right to one amendment, without leave of court, even though the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Rule 4 a) changes Massachusetts law in another material respect. Under prior practice an amendment setting out new causes of action could not be allowed. Boston Trust Funds Inc. v. Henderson thitp://masscases.camve, SJB 1/34 T MaSS7I0, ai}, Mass. 730, 170 N.E.2d 318 (1960); Beckwith v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (httpy/masscases.com/caseslsjn/354 4 Mimass766.inre), 354 fe Ma: 766, 238 N 2d 364 (1968). No such limitation ists under Rule 15. Indeed, Rule 15(d) permits the court, on terms, to allow a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out further transactions or occurrences or events which ha’ } appened since the date of the pleading soughtto be supplemented. Previously, Massachuset! aw did not allow an amendment to a deciara ion attempting to introduce a ci @ of action that did not exist when the action was brought, Sharpe v, Metrapolitar Transit Authority (ney massa: om‘eases/sj/32 7/327 masst71.hunt), 327 Mass, 171,97 N.E 2d 399 (1951). Rule 15(b), which tracks Federal Rule 15(bj, does not significantly change Massachusetts procedure. Issues, to whose triai the parties expressly or impliedly consent, will, even if not raised by the pleadings, be treated in all respects as if they had been so raised. Although such amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence may be made at any time, failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial. ff a party objects at the triai to evidence on the ground that {tis not within the issues made by the pleadings, Rule 15(b) enjoins the court freely to allow amendment unless the objecting party satisfies the court that admission of such evideni e would prejudice his case on the merits. A continuance may be granted to the objecting party to meet the evidence. This rule differs slightly from previous M. ssachuset practic Although language of Mass. G. © 234, 8 51 (htipsvimaiegistature.gowl a*awit rtlli/Fiuell/Chapter: 3 ction5t} (“at any time before judgment’) appears sufficiently broad to permit the trial judge to allow amendment during trial where an ob} ion is made to the adr on of certain evidence, the Court in Lewis v. Russell (napumasscases.comvcases’sicf30 Hama: ihtnh, 304 Mass. 41, 45, 22 N.E.2d 606, 608-609 (1939) held that defective pleading cannot be cured merely by reference to the plaintiff’s evidence, But even in Lewis, supra, the Court concluded: "T: decision does not affect the ¢ wer of the Superior Court in its discretion to allow the defendant to amend her answer on motion filed before judgment if, under all of the circumstances, justice appears to require such amendment,” Rule 15(c) provides far the relation back of amendments whenever the claim or defense asserted arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, This provision ties directly to the statute of imitations. Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 Under Federal Ruie 15{c) an amendrnent changing the party against whom a claim is asserted may reiate back (and thus preclude a statute of limitations defense) if the claim in the amended pleading arase out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him, Massachusetts practice 5 more liberal than Federal Rule 15(c) in allowing amendments adding or st bstituting party defendants after expiration of the period of limitations The Massachusetts rule is set out in detail in Wadsworth v. Boston Gas Company thtepy/massca erica fh. na! 1), 352 Mass. 86, 88-89, 223 N.E.2d 807, 809-810 (1967) in the following language: ithas ¢ n been said that the running of the statute of limitations is not a reason for denying an amendment and may furn ha reason for allowing it. johnson v. Carrollth {psl/masscases.com/cases/s|e/272/2/2inasst 34. nu tb, 72 Mass, 134, 138, 172 N.E, 85; Peterson v. Cadogan thupwim onn/cases $3/513mass133.h0ml), 313 Mass. 133, 134, 46 N.E.2d 517, and cases cited, In general, the law in this Commonwealth with respect to am: ndments is more liberal than elsewhere, and cases from other jurisdictions are not in point, Ne: fy v. Beard (hepyime: me 26; ass 332 fy nih, 226 Mass, 332, 334, 175 N,E. 420. see Ideal Financing Assn. Inc. v. McPhail thttp-v/mass s.comfcase 320/326 Lhiey, 320 Mas 1, 70% 2d 341 “There is ample authority for the proposition that where an action has been commenced befo! the statute of limitations has run, a plaintiff may be allowed to substitute one defendant for another after the statute of limitations has run against the proposed substitute defendant. McLaughlin v. West End St. Ry. (aurpmasseases. cage jer 186) BGmass hem}, 186 Mass, 150, 51, 71 NE. 317, Genga v. Director Gen, of Raitroads dntavymass ses.com/cases/s B42: 43enass 104 by }, 243 Mass. 101, 104, 137 N.E, 637, and cases cited. After the amendment has been allowed and the defendant brought ir ‘© court by due process, the substitution relates back to the date of the writ and makes the substituted defendant a party from that date, Johnson v. Carrall nepysmasstiases.comycasesisjer? a4.hun, 272 Mass, 134, 137, 172 N.C. 85. We ho difference in principle between permitting a plaintiffto substitute a defendant and permitting a plaintiff to add a defendant. See Cohen v. Levy thup: asscases.comfeasesssie/224/224m atent}, 221 Mass. 336, 337, 108 NE, 1074; McPherson v. Boston Edison Co. ouitnasscases.cor je 336733 masso4.homh, 336 Mass. 94,97, 142 N.E.2d 758. The effect in both cases is that a different defendant is ¢ led upon to defend the action. We hold, therefore, that the priety of allowing the amendment in both cases ts governed by the same rules.” For statutory requirements governing amendment of names in Superior Court divorce proceedings, see G.L. c. 208 § 40 10. Rule 15(d) provides that the court, upon motion of a party, may allow the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events postdating the pleading sought to be supplemented. This ‘iberalizes Mas: husetts law, which did not allow an amendment to sustain a new cause of action not intended when the writ was drawn, See Church v. Boylston and Woodbury Cafe Co. (h pvimasscases.com/cases/s) S218 BIAES2 ihen), 278 Mass. 237, 105 N.E, 883 (1914), Downloads Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (hips:Avww.nass.govidocimassachusetts-rutes-of-civil-proceduresdownioady (English, POF 1.91 MB) Contact Trial Court Law Libraries Online Library locations and phone numbers (/rial-courtaw-librarytocations) Chat with a law librarian online service de fs a listers textwith-a-law-liprarian) Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359° & Block @ ul yi 1oOn SS Acoottling to the APA manual, quotations that are 40 words or more are considered block quotations and are formatted differently than regular quotations, The follawing is a list of the unique formatting that is needed for block quotations: 4. Block quotations start on their own line. 2. The entire block quotation is indented 0.5 Inches, the same as the Indentation for a new paragraph, and is double spaced. 3. Block quotations are not surrounded by any quotation marks. 4, The punctuation at the end of the block quotation goes before the citation. 5. The ending citation is included on the last line of the block quotation 6. The text after the block quotation begins on its own line, with no indentation. You should not end a paragraph with a block quotation because any quotation you use as evidence in your writing should be followed by analysis in your own words as part of the same paragraph. Note that block quotations should be used sparingly, Block quotations tend to take over the voice of the paper, often overshadowing the voice of the author with that source's voice. lnstead, if at ail possible, try to quate smaller portions of the piece of text and incorporate these into your own voice. This practice will nat only allow you to establish your voic 3 5 the author but also shaw the way you are engaging with the information, not just reporting it Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 Bhoets ples nple #4 ‘Today, digital cameras have practically taken over photography. As Johnson (2010) explained, Digital cameras now make up 90% of all camera sales at the leading electronic stores. This increase in sales can be partially attributed to the widespread use of email and social networking, which has encouraged the sharing of digital photos. (p. 23) Johnson further noted that, even more than with the shift to digital cameras, the increasing use of phones and iPods that have built-in cameras has replacad the use of film cameras. Computer users often disagree about which operating system is best: Mac or PC. Oyler (2010) stated that one operating system is not better than the other, but that one may be better suited for different purposes than the other. She explained by saying that Maes are often the best option for users who wish to work with video or picture manipulation. Macs are also very user friendly, which may benefit consumers who are new to computers. PCs, however, run Microsoft Office Suite the best, Therefore, students might find that a PC is their best option because it can run Microsoft Word and PowerPoint the smoothest. (Oyler, 2010, p. 48) Conversely, Jones (2010) disagreed with the statement that Macs work with graphics such as video and pictures better than PCs, stating that PCs can be modified to work as well as Mac: fle: 4 BR ee Ooh dlock Quotations Knowledge Check Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 =“— wessesssessses "COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss, SUPERIOR COURT : DOCKET NO, 2281CV04359 SUSAN CHEUNG, AND Mar. 10th 2023 CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG Plaintiff, Y THOMAS B PUSCHAK and CAROL PUSCHAK Defendant. ) OPPOSITIONS 2 TO MOTIONS OF DEFENDANTS THOMAS PUSCHAK AND CAROL PUSCHAK TO STRIKE THE COMPLAINT OF THE PLAINTIFFS, SUSAN CHEUNG AND CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 12(e) ORDER The Plaintiff Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung oppose motion filed by Defendants on March 2"¢ 2023: Plaintiffs Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung comply with the Superior court order issued on Feb 17" 2023, Plaintiffs already informed the court that Amended complaint is on the way. The court order did not specify the date for the amended complaint to be submitted, the plaintiffs should be able to submit the amended complaint within reasonable time. The Defendants’ motion failed in compliant with Superior Court Rule 9A in procedure format, Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 ‘Phe Motion substance is also not in compliance with “Civil Procedure Rule 15: Amended and supplemental pleadings” law 5. The Plaintiffs request that the defendants dismiss their above invalid motion, the defendants can redo it in order to be in compliant with Rule 9A, and comply with “Civil Procedure Rule 15: Amended and supplemental pleadings” law The Plaintiffs <— Susan Cheung __ eae Heung Christopher Cheung, At Opiate. (__. Phone: 7816401770 Email susandingcheung@email.com Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUS: t TS MIDDLESEX. SS SUPERIOR COURT : DOC 2277CVOT167R. - SUS § CHEUNG and CHRISTOPHER CH NG Plaintiffs, THOMAS PUSCHAK and CAROL PUSCHAK Defendants. . MOTION OF THE DEFENDANTS, THOMAS PUSCHAK AND CAROL PUSHAK TO STRIK THE COMPLAINT OF THE AUNTIFES, SUSAN CHEUNG AND CHRISTOPHER CH NG FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 124) ORDER. NOW come the defendants. Thomas Puschak, D.M.D. and Carol Puschak and respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike the Complaint of the plaintiffs, Susan Cheung, and Christopher Cheung for failure to comply with court order pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12¢e). In support of this Motion, the defendants’ states as follows: I Mass. Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) states as follows: If the motion is granied and the ord raf the court is ‘ TALS we rhe wet Ve not obeved within. 10-deys-afier notice of the order or within such time as the court may fix, the court u bg iy thet may strike the. pleading to which the motion was ye yar ‘ \ ot directed or make such order as it deems just. vf 4 pFIN Defendants, Thomas Puschak and Carol Puschak filed a Motion to strike and Motion for more definitive statement along with Plainti *s opposition on February 15, 023. ee On ev 17 the court allowed Plaintiffs Motions to strike and ation for more | | pe we att definitive statement, Count 1, a ph 12 of Count 2. nd Count 5 were struck from the complaint pursuant in Meiss, Cie { Ch. 231 §60L. See Exhibit A. Lau 1 ge 4 On the ro TOUS Piiatiis w orderect. ursuant to rule 12(¢), to file a more Ko le nA \ definite statement ‘uy : forth the Jegal claims the plaintif HET pay FOU the legal i Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 , \ theories tinder which they ses to recover This order was made as to paragraph 15-19 of Count 2, Count 3, and Count 4. See exhibit A. Nol i 5. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the issued court order pursuant to Rule 2K within} Couph (bu tot the allowed 10 days. Defendants have further received no communication to date trom Plalutiffs fat!Wesusan Cheung and/or Christopher Cheung regarding the filing of amore definitive statement. J Wit He Spey A Je ott oye { wah \ WHE! FORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court strike the complaint of ule YF A 4 the plaintiffs, Susan Cheung and ¢ istopher Cheung, for violations of the February 17, 2023 w Wwe Court order pursuant fo Rule 12(¢). Respectfully submitted The Defendants. Phomas Puschak D.M.D. and Carol Puschak By their attorneys, s/ Vineent P. Dunn, Exq. Vincent P. Dunn, BBO. 1034 Juliana M Mieles, BBO: #7075 16 Hamel, Marcin, Dunn, Reardon & Shea BC. 350 Lincoln Street. Suite 110 Hinghar MA 02043 (617) 0007 vdunn@hmdrslaw.com Dated: March 2 23 jmiele: hmdrslaw.com Date Filed 3/16/2023 11:39 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2281CV04359 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT ® DOCKET NO. 2281CV04359 SUSAN CHEUNG and CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG laintiffs. v THOMAS PUSCHAK and CAROL