Golrick v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Golrick v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

12 N.E.3d 1007, 469 Mass. 1005

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJuly 17, 2014

DocketSJC 11632

StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.E.3d 1007 (Golrick v. U.S. Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Golrick v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 12 N.E.3d 1007, 469 Mass. 1005 (Mass. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner filed a petition in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging a Superior Court order denying her request that the respondent’s attorney be disqualified from representing the respondent in the underlying litigation between the parties. A single justice of this court denied the petition without a hearing, and the petitioner appealed. We affirm.

The case is before us on a memorandum and appendix filed by the petitioner pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule requires the petitioner to “set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” She has failed to carry her burden. The alternative remedy in this case is clear: the petitioner can adequately obtain review of the order denying disqualification of the respondent’s counsel in an appeal from the adverse final judgment. 1 Masiello v. Perini Corp., 394 Mass. 842, 850 (1985). Borman v. Borman, 378 Mass. 775, 779 (1979). General Laws c. 211, § 3, is not a substitute for the normal process of trial and appeal, and the petitioner has not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances rendering the ordinary remedy inadequate.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

1

The Superior Court docket indicates that judgment now has entered for the respondent and that the petitioner has in fact filed a notice of appeal.

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

The petitioner filed a petition in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging a Superior Court order denying her request that the respondent’s attorney be disqualified from representing the respondent in the underlying litigation between the parties. A single justice of this court denied the petition without a hearing, and the petitioner appealed. We affirm.

The case is before us on a memorandum and appendix filed by the petitioner pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule requires the petitioner to “set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” She has failed to carry her burden. The alternative remedy in this case is clear: the petitioner can adequately obtain review of the order denying disqualification of the respondent’s counsel in an appeal from the adverse final judgment. 1 Masiello v. Perini Corp., 394 Mass. 842, 850 (1985). Borman v. Borman, 378 Mass. 775, 779 (1979). General Laws c. 211, § 3, is not a substitute for the normal process of trial and appeal, and the petitioner has not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances rendering the ordinary remedy inadequate.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

1

The Superior Court docket indicates that judgment now has entered for the respondent and that the petitioner has in fact filed a notice of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.E.3d 1007, 469 Mass. 1005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golrick-v-us-bank-na-mass-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack