Aguiar v. Russo et al

Filing 20

Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. Defendant's Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Dismiss 18 which the court has interpreted to be a Motion for Reconsideration is hereby ALLOWED WITHOUT OPPOSITION. As Plaintiff's challeng e to the constitutionality of Section 58A is foreclosed by relevant caselaw and a proper construction of the statute, this claim is DISMISSED. Having dismissed all of the claims against Defendant, this case is now CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

Aguiar v. Russo et al

Doc. 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JOSEPH AGUIAR, Plaintiff, v. LOIS RUSSO, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * ORDER July 29, 2010 TAURO, J. Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss [#18], which this court has interpreted to be a Motion for Reconsideration,1 is hereby ALLOWED WITHOUT OPPOSITION. As Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of Section 58A is foreclosed by relevant caselaw and a proper construction of the statute, this claim is DISMISSED. Having dismissed all of the claims against Defendant, this case is now CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Joseph L. Tauro United States District Judge

Civil Action No. 09-10353-JLT

By Memorandum and Order [#14] dated November 6, 2009, Judge Stearns denied Defendant's original request to dismiss the constitutional claim contained in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#12]. In his order, however, Judge Stearns "invited" Defendant "to file a brief addressing this issue," noting that Plaintiff's constitutional claim was "vague," and, for that reason, Defendant's failure to fully brief the issue was "understandabl[e]." Nov. 6, 2009 Order at 4-6. It is therefore appropriate to interpret the present motion to be a Motion for Reconsideration, as it is implicit in the November 6, 2009 Order that Defendant's initial failure to brief the issue was the result of "excusable neglect," and possibly subject to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

1

Dockets.Justia.com