Ticchi v. Ambassador Cab, Inc.

11 Mass. App. Ct. 912
CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court
DecidedJanuary 22, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 11 Mass. App. Ct. 912 (Ticchi v. Ambassador Cab, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ticchi v. Ambassador Cab, Inc., 11 Mass. App. Ct. 912 (Mass. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff because the defendants failed to file answers to interrogatories of the plaintiff within the prescribed time. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 33(a), as amended, 368 Mass. 906 (1975). The judge denied their motion to vacate judgment under Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974).

The complaint was filed on January 25, 1980, in a District Court and then removed to the Superior Court. On the failure of the defendants to file answers within forty-five days, the plaintiff filed an application for a conditional judgment which became a final judgment because the answers had not been filed by the expiration of thirty days from the notice of application. Mass.R.Civ.P. 33(a), as amended, 368 Mass. 906 (1976). Twelve days after expiration of the thirty-day period and less than five months after the entry of the action, the defendants filed their answers in connection with their motion under rule 60(b). In denying this motion, the judge, in effect, imposed the most severe sanction open to him — judgment against the defendants. There has been no showing of prejudice by the plaintiff. See and compare Berube v. McKesson Wine & Spirits Co., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 426, 430-431 (1979). We think that such a sanction is too severe under these circumstances, though the defendants “should be subjected to appropriate sanctions short of being deprived of a trial on the merits of the plaintiff s claim.” Henshaw v. Travelers Ins. Co., 377 Mass. 910, 911 (1979). See Teuscher v. Teuscher, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 914 (1980). We order the judgment reversed and the motion under rule 60(b) allowed. We direct the imposition of whatever sanctions, including attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the defendants’ failure to file timely answers (see Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(b), 365 Mass. 798 [1974], the judge deems appropriate. See 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2284 (1970).

So ordered.

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

Related

Gargano v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.
2006 Mass. App. Div. 182 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2006)
AT&T Universal Card Services Corp. v. Reynolds
1996 Mass. App. Div. 219 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1996)
Diamond v. Hanover Insurance
1994 Mass. App. Div. 200 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1994)
Scannell v. Ed. Ferreirinha & Irmao, Lda.
514 N.E.2d 1325 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1987)
Roxse Homes Ltd. Partnership v. Roxse Homes, Inc.
504 N.E.2d 633 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1987)
Wilkinson v. Guarino
19 Mass. App. Ct. 1021 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985)
Kenney v. Rust
462 N.E.2d 333 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1984)
Imprescia v. Imprescia
451 N.E.2d 740 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)
Parkman Equipment Corp. v. S.A.S. Equipment Co.
437 N.E.2d 256 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Mass. App. Ct. 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ticchi-v-ambassador-cab-inc-massappct-1981.