Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a
Member of, and derivatively on behalf of,
D’ ANGELO and HASHEM, LLC. h
Plaintiff Civil Action No. 16CV1419
v.
STEPHEN L. D’ANGELO, D’ ANGELO
LAW GROUP, LLC, and D’ANGELO
AND HASHEM, LLC.
Defendants
ee
DEFENDANT D’ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC’S and
DEFENDANT STEPHEN D‘ANGELO’S POSITION STATEMENT,
MOTION FOR GUIDANCE, AND FOR OTHER RELIEF
NOW COMES, Defendants, through counsel and respectfully moves this Honorable
Court to Guidance regarding a Motion for Trustee Process, to Reach and Apply, and Motion for
Attorney’s Fees served via mail per Superior Court Rule 9A on June 12, 2020, and was received
on June 15, 2020.
Intervenor Counsel’s Counsel has stated in Paragraph 20 (page 5) of her Emergency
Motion to Reach and Apply (styled as “for Trustee Process”), which is being heard Tuesday,
June 14, 2020 at 2 p.m. via Zoom teleconference, that she intends to file that Motion(s) with this
Court tomorrow, June 14, 2020. This comes as a surprise to Defendants Counsel, who has
reached out to Intervenor-Counsel about same without success. Defendants’ counsel believes
she is out of the country on personal matters.
Specifically, Defendants’ Counsel have emailed Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff advising
its position that under Superior Court Standing Order 8-20, Section F, that an Opposition, whichDefendants have a right to and intend to Oppose, is not yet due. We will also call her office
number today, as that is the only telephone number known.
That Standing Order, of which I speak and have in good faith relied upon, states in relevant part:
“F, Tolling of deadlines set by statute, court rule, standing order, or guideline. As
provided in SJC-July 1 Order, par. 14, unless otherwise ordered by a judge presiding over
a case, all deadlines set forth in statutes or court rules, standing orders, tracking orders, or
guidelines that expired at any time from March 17, 2020, through June 30, 2020, were
toiled by prior SJC Orders from March 17, 2020, through June 30, 2020, and will not be
tolled any further unless there is a new surge in COVID-19 cases in the Commonwealth
and the SJC determines that a new or extended period of tolling is needed. This paragraph
does not affect the continuance of trials, which are governed by Part A hereof.
If such a deadline had not expired as of March 17, 2020, then to calculate the new
deadline, count the number of days from, and including, March 17 to the original
deadline and take that number and add it to July | for the new deadline. Ifa deadline
tolled pursuant to this paragraph is one of a series of deadlines under a tracking order, all
of the subsequent deadlines are extended by the same number of days as the deadline
tolled pursuant to this paragraph, unless otherwise ordered by the court. “
While these pandemic times are unique, and it is a task to keep up with the changing Orders
affecting Civil cases, and deadlines, and Intervenor-Counseél may or not be mistaken, Defendants
position, after reading the above order several times, and corroborating his understanding with 2
other attorneys, that the Motion in question to be filed was served via mail on June 12, 2020 and
received June 15, 2020! is not yet due to be served on Counsel for Intervening Plaintiff.
More specifically, Defendants’ good faith interpretation of the deadline was and is that an
Opposition is not required to be served until October 12, 2020. This is based on there being one
hundred one (101) days from and including March 17, 2020 until the original deadline date
which would have been 10 days after service, which service was received on June 25, 2020,
1 An Agreement to accept service by electronic service is not applicable and not agreement, under Rule 9A is in
place.three (3) days after its mailing from Boston. 101 days from June 25, 2020 falls on a Saturday,
October 10, 2020, so the deadline, by rule, ‘rolls forward to the following Monday, which is
Qctober 12, 2020.
Thus, this Motion was to seek an Order to Strike if said Motions were filed as represented.
However, with that said, after speaking via phone with Carlotta Patten this morning, it may be
that Defendants’ Counsel, including myself, may have misinterpreted the Standing Order.
Assistant Clerk Carlotta Patten was gracious enough in her call to offer a different interpretation
and calculation, based on the Motions in question not yet having been served as of March 17,
2020. While neither myself, nor the 2 other attorney’s I spoke with to corroborate my
interpretation had read that implication into the Standing Order, but I concede it’s certainly a
viable interpretation, hence this Position Statement and Motion, which Ms. Patten thought was
appropriate in this situation, with which I entirely agree, hence the filing of this re-titled motion.
Defendants’ counsel did on June 12, 2020, email Counsel for intervening Plaintiff , in case she is
able to check her emails from where she has been, (out of the country), as soon as I noticed her
representation that she knew of no Opposition and was filing, (Emergency Motion, P. 5, Para.
20.) advising her of same, but as of the preparation of this Motion, has not heard back from said
counsel, receiving an explanation from her as to the appropriateness of filing the Motions
tomorrow, on July, 14, 2020.
Defendants do intend to Oppose. It is important that Defendants’ Opposition be read and heard
by this Court insofar as the Intervenor-Plaintiff is seeking the drastic relief of trustee process, an
injunction to reach arid apply, and substantial Attorney's Fees, which should be vetted. History
in this case, has been that similar requests for Attorney’s fees have been very significant
amounts, which Defendants, respectfully, are confident are subject to a defense of lack of
3reasonableness, based on hourly rates claimed in the past, number of hours claimed, lack of
complexity and other defenses particularly unique to this litigation, based on past course of
dealings.
On behalf of Defendants’ counsel, I will cal! Ms. Carrion’s office as well, in case she is
retrieving voice messages and able to return same to discuss.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Move for An Order for Guidance regarding Intervenor-
Plaintiff's (non-emergency) Motions(s) for Trustee Process, to Reach and Apply and Motion for
Attorney’s Fees that is to be filed tomorrow, Tuesday, July 14, 2020, (See Paragraph 20 of
said Emergency Motion), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, for a reasonable extension of time to
file an appropriate Opposition on or before Monday, July 27, 2020, absent any agreement the
parties may arrive at in the interim, or such date as the Court may deem fair and appropriate.
Said request and extended time will not Cause prejudice to any patty, and Defendants contend, is
reasonable based on the multiple papers recently filed in this matter and Defendants’ Counsel
good faith reading and reasonableness in obtaining corroboration of its/his interpretation.case, and the importance and length of said moving papers.
Respectfully Submitted,
Defendant, Stephen L. D’ Angelo,
D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, by its
counsel
Thomas C. LaPorte
Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq.
BBO #634194
Kenneth A. Cossingham, Esq.
BBO #100970
Cossingham Law Office, PC
30 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 404
North Andover, MA 01845
Tel No: 978-685-5686
e-mail:tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com
Dated: July 13, 2020CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq., hereby certify that on this 13" day of July 20120 served a
copy of the foregoing to all parties by mailing a copy via electronic mail to:
Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esq.
Rivera Bujosa Law, PC
Shipway Place
Unit C2
The Charlestown Navy Yard
Charlestown, MA 02129
mernaysa@riverabujosalaw.com
Albert I. Farrah, Esq.
Farrah and Farrah
800 Boylston Street, Suite 1600
Boston, MA 02199
Email: alf@farrah-law.com
2Ls/ Thomas C. LaPorte
Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq.
Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a Member of, and derivatively on behalf of, D’ ANGELO and HASHEM, LLC. h Plaintiff Civil Action No. 16CV1419 v. STEPHEN L. D’ANGELO, D’ ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC, and D’ANGELO AND HASHEM, LLC. Defendants ee DEFENDANT D’ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC’S and DEFENDANT STEPHEN D‘ANGELO’S POSITION STATEMENT, MOTION FOR GUIDANCE, AND FOR OTHER RELIEF NOW COMES, Defendants, through counsel and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to Guidance regarding a Motion for Trustee Process, to Reach and Apply, and Motion for Attorney’s Fees served via mail per Superior Court Rule 9A on June 12, 2020, and was received on June 15, 2020. Intervenor Counsel’s Counsel has stated in Paragraph 20 (page 5) of her Emergency Motion to Reach and Apply (styled as “for Trustee Process”), which is being heard Tuesday, June 14, 2020 at 2 p.m. via Zoom teleconference, that she intends to file that Motion(s) with this Court tomorrow, June 14, 2020. This comes as a surprise to Defendants Counsel, who has reached out to Intervenor-Counsel about same without success. Defendants’ counsel believes she is out of the country on personal matters. Specifically, Defendants’ Counsel have emailed Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff advising its position that under Superior Court Standing Order 8-20, Section F, that an Opposition, whichDefendants have a right to and intend to Oppose, is not yet due. We will also call her office number today, as that is the only telephone number known. That Standing Order, of which I speak and have in good faith relied upon, states in relevant part: “F, Tolling of deadlines set by statute, court rule, standing order, or guideline. As provided in SJC-July 1 Order, par. 14, unless otherwise ordered by a judge presiding over a case, all deadlines set forth in statutes or court rules, standing orders, tracking orders, or guidelines that expired at any time from March 17, 2020, through June 30, 2020, were toiled by prior SJC Orders from March 17, 2020, through June 30, 2020, and will not be tolled any further unless there is a new surge in COVID-19 cases in the Commonwealth and the SJC determines that a new or extended period of tolling is needed. This paragraph does not affect the continuance of trials, which are governed by Part A hereof. If such a deadline had not expired as of March 17, 2020, then to calculate the new deadline, count the number of days from, and including, March 17 to the original deadline and take that number and add it to July | for the new deadline. Ifa deadline tolled pursuant to this paragraph is one of a series of deadlines under a tracking order, all of the subsequent deadlines are extended by the same number of days as the deadline tolled pursuant to this paragraph, unless otherwise ordered by the court. “ While these pandemic times are unique, and it is a task to keep up with the changing Orders affecting Civil cases, and deadlines, and Intervenor-Counseél may or not be mistaken, Defendants position, after reading the above order several times, and corroborating his understanding with 2 other attorneys, that the Motion in question to be filed was served via mail on June 12, 2020 and received June 15, 2020! is not yet due to be served on Counsel for Intervening Plaintiff. More specifically, Defendants’ good faith interpretation of the deadline was and is that an Opposition is not required to be served until October 12, 2020. This is based on there being one hundred one (101) days from and including March 17, 2020 until the original deadline date which would have been 10 days after service, which service was received on June 25, 2020, 1 An Agreement to accept service by electronic service is not applicable and not agreement, under Rule 9A is in place.three (3) days after its mailing from Boston. 101 days from June 25, 2020 falls on a Saturday, October 10, 2020, so the deadline, by rule, ‘rolls forward to the following Monday, which is Qctober 12, 2020. Thus, this Motion was to seek an Order to Strike if said Motions were filed as represented. However, with that said, after speaking via phone with Carlotta Patten this morning, it may be that Defendants’ Counsel, including myself, may have misinterpreted the Standing Order. Assistant Clerk Carlotta Patten was gracious enough in her call to offer a different interpretation and calculation, based on the Motions in question not yet having been served as of March 17, 2020. While neither myself, nor the 2 other attorney’s I spoke with to corroborate my interpretation had read that implication into the Standing Order, but I concede it’s certainly a viable interpretation, hence this Position Statement and Motion, which Ms. Patten thought was appropriate in this situation, with which I entirely agree, hence the filing of this re-titled motion. Defendants’ counsel did on June 12, 2020, email Counsel for intervening Plaintiff , in case she is able to check her emails from where she has been, (out of the country), as soon as I noticed her representation that she knew of no Opposition and was filing, (Emergency Motion, P. 5, Para. 20.) advising her of same, but as of the preparation of this Motion, has not heard back from said counsel, receiving an explanation from her as to the appropriateness of filing the Motions tomorrow, on July, 14, 2020. Defendants do intend to Oppose. It is important that Defendants’ Opposition be read and heard by this Court insofar as the Intervenor-Plaintiff is seeking the drastic relief of trustee process, an injunction to reach arid apply, and substantial Attorney's Fees, which should be vetted. History in this case, has been that similar requests for Attorney’s fees have been very significant amounts, which Defendants, respectfully, are confident are subject to a defense of lack of 3reasonableness, based on hourly rates claimed in the past, number of hours claimed, lack of complexity and other defenses particularly unique to this litigation, based on past course of dealings. On behalf of Defendants’ counsel, I will cal! Ms. Carrion’s office as well, in case she is retrieving voice messages and able to return same to discuss. WHEREFORE, Defendants Move for An Order for Guidance regarding Intervenor- Plaintiff's (non-emergency) Motions(s) for Trustee Process, to Reach and Apply and Motion for Attorney’s Fees that is to be filed tomorrow, Tuesday, July 14, 2020, (See Paragraph 20 of said Emergency Motion), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, for a reasonable extension of time to file an appropriate Opposition on or before Monday, July 27, 2020, absent any agreement the parties may arrive at in the interim, or such date as the Court may deem fair and appropriate. Said request and extended time will not Cause prejudice to any patty, and Defendants contend, is reasonable based on the multiple papers recently filed in this matter and Defendants’ Counsel good faith reading and reasonableness in obtaining corroboration of its/his interpretation.case, and the importance and length of said moving papers. Respectfully Submitted, Defendant, Stephen L. D’ Angelo, D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, by its counsel Thomas C. LaPorte Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq. BBO #634194 Kenneth A. Cossingham, Esq. BBO #100970 Cossingham Law Office, PC 30 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 404 North Andover, MA 01845 Tel No: 978-685-5686 e-mail:tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com Dated: July 13, 2020CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq., hereby certify that on this 13" day of July 20120 served a copy of the foregoing to all parties by mailing a copy via electronic mail to: Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esq. Rivera Bujosa Law, PC Shipway Place Unit C2 The Charlestown Navy Yard Charlestown, MA 02129 mernaysa@riverabujosalaw.com Albert I. Farrah, Esq. Farrah and Farrah 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02199 Email: alf@farrah-law.com 2Ls/ Thomas C. LaPorte Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq.