Posts tagged "1210917"

Connor v. District Attorney for the Norfolk District (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-109-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS   NORFOLK, ss.                                                                                  SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                             CIVIL ACTION                                                                                                             No. 14-01322     MYLES J. CONNOR   vs.   DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE NORFOLK DISTRICT   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION   The plaintiff, Myles J. Connor (“Connor”), brought this action for declaratory relief pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, seeking a declaration that he is the owner of certain property (“the Property”) which was seized by the District Attorney for the Norfolk District (“District Attorney”) during execution of a search warrant in 1985.  On June 12, 2017, this Court denied the District Attorney’s motion for summary judgment.  Now before the Court is the District Attorney’s motion for reconsideration.  For the reasons contained herein, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. BACKGROUND   The facts surrounding how the District Attorney came to possess the Property, and Connor’s efforts to reclaim the Property, have already been described in detail in this Court’s earlier Decision and Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Connor v. District Attorney for the Norfolk District, 2017 WL 2979108 (Mass. Super. 2017).  Those facts are incorporated by reference into this decision. The District Attorney has submitted additional exhibits to supplement the summary judgment record.  The additional exhibits include deposition testimony of Kathryn M. Perry-Dougan, who pled guilty to a charge of drug possession following the 1985 search of her apartment where the Quincy police seized drugs as well as the Property. DISCUSSION   A party seeking reconsideration of a prior ruling must show newly discovered evidence, a change of circumstances, a change of law, or a plain error of fact or law in the original ruling.  See Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Audubon Hill South Condominium Assoc. v. Community Assoc. Underwriters of Am., Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 470 (2012).  The District Attorney has shown none of these, nor has explained why arguments made in its motion for reconsideration were not made earlier. In its motion, the District Attorney re-hashes its argument that the doctrine of laches applies to Connor’s claim.  The District Attorney has failed to point out any reason that would require reconsideration on this point.  Fundamentally, the District Attorney’s argument remains flawed in that it is premised on the notion that the burden of initiating action in this case rested on the Plaintiff.  It did not – the law places that burden squarely on the shoulders of the District Attorney.  The District Attorney’s attempts to shift that burden are plainly misplaced.  Even were the Court to leave this point aside and reconsider the laches argument, it would still conclude that the District Attorney is not entitled to prevail on summary judgement on this record.  “Laches is […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 18, 2017 at 2:10 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,