Litton Business Telephone Systems, Inc. v. Schwartz

400 N.E.2d 281, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 847, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1018
Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided February 19, 1980·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The appeal must be dismissed because the judgment entered on November 17,1978, does not dispose of the counterclaim of the individual defendant and there has been no compliance with the requirements of the first sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 821 (1974). E.W. Foster Co. v. McLaughlin, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 865 (1979), and cases cited. No final judgment (G. L. c. 231, § 113, as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 202) is to be entered while the case remains in its present posture unless the judge who entered the orders of December 9, 1977, and October 23, 1978, shall first file with the papers an explanation of his reasons for striking the aforementioned counterclaim and defaulting both defendants rather than imposing one or more of the other sanctions available under Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), 365 Mass. 798-799 (1974). See Henshaw v. Travelers Ins. Co., 377 Mass. 910, 911 (1979).

Appeal dismissed

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

Litton Business Telephone Systems, Inc. v. Schwartz, 400 N.E.2d 281, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 847, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1018 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

400 N.E.2d 281 (Litton Business Telephone Systems, Inc. v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Hanover Insurance
First Circuit, 1996
Commonwealth v. O'Leary
459 N.E.2d 115 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1984)
Bob Berman Associates, Inc. v. Gross
448 N.E.2d 80 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)
Litton Business Telephone Systems, Inc. v. Schwartz
430 N.E.2d 862 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
Tammaro v. Colarusso
413 N.E.2d 1118 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1980)