Posts tagged "G.G."

G.G. v. L.R., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-009-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   SJC-12418   G.G.  vs.  L.R. & another.[1],[2]     January 16, 2018.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.     The petitioner, G.G., obtained a civil harassment prevention order in the Superior Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 258E, against L.R.  The order, and subsequent modifications of it, contained various directives addressed to L.R., as well as to L.R.’s employer, P.F.  L.R.’s appeal presently is pending in the Appeals Court; both the Superior Court judge and a single justice of the Appeals Court denied L.R.’s motion to stay enforcement of the order pending appeal.   While L.R.’s appeal has been pending, a series of events ensued in the Superior Court and the Appeals Court.  Notably, a second single justice of the Appeals Court modified a provision of an order entered during the pendency of L.R.’s appeal, denied L.R.’s motion to stay contempt proceedings, and denied G.G.’s motion for sanctions.  In addition, after the Superior Court judge allowed G.G.’s “motion to add” P.F. as a party to the proceedings and entered other orders, P.F. appealed.  That appeal also is pending in the Appeals Court.  On July 27, 2017, a third single justice of the Appeals Court allowed P.F.’s motion to stay enforcement of certain orders pending appeal and L.R.’s motion to stay enforcement of a portion of an order.  The third single justice denied G.G.’s motions for reconsideration of both orders, but treated them as notices of appeal, and indicated that “the appeal shall proceed in the normal course.”  Insofar as the record before us indicates, G.G. has not pursued those appeals.[3]   Instead, G.G. filed a petition in the county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, primarily requesting that the court vacate the Appeals Court single justice’s July, 2017, orders.  In addition, the petition sought an order disqualifying a particular attorney from representing L.R. or G.G., a declaration that a certain constitutional provision is unconstitutional as applied in the underlying proceedings, and other relief.[4]  A single justice of this court denied the petition without a hearing.  G.G.’s appeal from that particular ruling is what is now before us on a memorandum and appendix filed pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  Rule 2:21 applies where a single justice has denied relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, from a challenged interlocutory […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 16, 2018 at 11:56 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,