Data Conversion, Inc. v. MCS Associates, Inc.

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Data Conversion, Inc. v. MCS Associates, Inc.

1990 Mass. App. Div. 103, 1990 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 55

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedJuly 17, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1990 Mass. App. Div. 103 (Data Conversion, Inc. v. MCS Associates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Data Conversion, Inc. v. MCS Associates, Inc., 1990 Mass. App. Div. 103, 1990 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 55 (Mass. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Dolan, J.

This is an action in contract in which the plaintiff seeks to recover $8,864 from the defendants for services rendered.

The original action was against both the corporate defendant and the individual defendant. The court allowedarealestateattachmentagainst the individual defendant’s property. Subsequently, the plaintiff agreed to discharge the attachment in exchange for a personal check ($9,000) from the individual defendant, to be held as substitute surety.

[104]*104Summary judgment for the individual defendant was then later allowed. However, the individual defendant’s motion for termination of the substitute security was denied. From that denial, the individual defendant requested a report and filed a draft report which was not acted upon. A petition to establish was then filed and forwarded to this division.

The individual defendant is premature in his appeal to this division. Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 54(b) states, inrelevantpart, that “...when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no justreason for delay, and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” In the absence of such determination and direction, an adjudication as to fewer than all of the parties does not end the action as to any of the parties. Until the entry of judgment adjudicating all claims, the partial judgment for one party remains open and subject to revision. Id.

No determination was made by the judge in this case that there existed no just reason for delay. Accordingly, until a final adjudication is made as to the corporate defendant, both the motion for summary judgment for the individual defendant and the motion to terminate the substituted security are interlocutory in nature and not ripe for full review. See Caldwell v. Collier, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 903, 904 (1977). See also E. W. Foster Co., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 865 (1979).

The individual defendant’s petition to establish is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dolan, J.

This is an action in contract in which the plaintiff seeks to recover $8,864 from the defendants for services rendered.

The original action was against both the corporate defendant and the individual defendant. The court allowedarealestateattachmentagainst the individual defendant’s property. Subsequently, the plaintiff agreed to discharge the attachment in exchange for a personal check ($9,000) from the individual defendant, to be held as substitute surety.

[104]*104Summary judgment for the individual defendant was then later allowed. However, the individual defendant’s motion for termination of the substitute security was denied. From that denial, the individual defendant requested a report and filed a draft report which was not acted upon. A petition to establish was then filed and forwarded to this division.

The individual defendant is premature in his appeal to this division. Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 54(b) states, inrelevantpart, that “...when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no justreason for delay, and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” In the absence of such determination and direction, an adjudication as to fewer than all of the parties does not end the action as to any of the parties. Until the entry of judgment adjudicating all claims, the partial judgment for one party remains open and subject to revision. Id.

No determination was made by the judge in this case that there existed no just reason for delay. Accordingly, until a final adjudication is made as to the corporate defendant, both the motion for summary judgment for the individual defendant and the motion to terminate the substituted security are interlocutory in nature and not ripe for full review. See Caldwell v. Collier, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 903, 904 (1977). See also E. W. Foster Co., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 865 (1979).

The individual defendant’s petition to establish is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 Mass. App. Div. 103, 1990 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/data-conversion-inc-v-mcs-associates-inc-massdistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack