Nolet v. Armstrong et al
Filing
92
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered granting 91 Motion to Dismiss (FDS, law1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
___________________________________________
)
FRANK NOLET,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DR. CATHERINA ARMSTRONG, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________________)
Civil Action No.
15-11499-FDS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
AS TO DEFENDANTS FREEDMAN, JAMERSON, AND LILIENSTEIN
SAYLOR, J.
On December 7, 2017, the Court referred this case to the Suffolk Superior Court for the
purpose of convening a medical malpractice tribunal pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, §
60B. The tribunal was convened on May 16, 2018, and was attended by the pro se plaintiff and
counsel for all defendants. The tribunal issued a decision on June 14, 2018, finding that plaintiff
failed to present “sufficient evidence to raise a legitimate question as to liability appropriate for
judicial inquiry” as to all named defendants. (Def. Ex. 2 at 6-7). Because the tribunal found for
defendants, plaintiff could “pursue the claim through the usual judicial process only upon filing
bond in the amount of six thousand dollars.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231 § 60B. “If said bond is
not posted within thirty days of the tribunal’s finding the action shall be dismissed.”
Defendants Kenneth Freedman, John Jamerson, and Joshua Lilienstein have since moved
to dismiss the complaint for failure to post the requisite $6,000 bond. Because more than thirty
days have passed since the tribunal issued its decision and no bond has been posted, the motion
to dismiss is GRANTED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor, IV
United States District Judge
Dated: August 20, 2018
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?