Neece v. City of Chicopee et al
| Jeffrey A Neece |
| City of Chicopee and Sharyn Riley |
| 3:2019cv30020 |
| February 15, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Mark G Mastroianni |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 75 Jury Instructions. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 74 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. PROCEDURAL ORDER re pretrial/trial. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/13/2022 at 2:30 PM in Hampden Courtroom (In person only) before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. See Order for complete details. (Attachments: #1 Voir Dire Questions) (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 73 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing. Jury Trial set for 8/2/2022 at 9:00 AM in Hampden Courtroom (In person only) before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 72 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered as to #59 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties have stipulated to the dismissal of Counts I and II; the motion as to those counts is, therefore, found moot. As Counts I and II were the only claims against Defendant Riley, the remainder of this decision refers to the City of Chicopee as the sole Defendant. For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED as to Counts III and V and DENIED as to Counts IV and VI. This case is set for trial on 8/2/2022.In Count III, Plaintiff claims Defendant breached his employment contract, specifically the automatic extension provision set forth in the last sentence of Article II, when it ceased paying him after June 28, 2018, when the mayor informed him that he would not be reappointed. Defendant seeks summary judgment, arguing the claim is premised on an unreasonable reading of the contract. Under Massachusetts law, it is up to the court to interpret contract language, including whether there are ambiguities that must be resolved by a fact finder. Fashion House, Inc. v. K mart Corp., 892 F.2d 1076, 1083 (1st Cir. 1989). The court must "construe a contract as a whole, so as 'to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions.'" James B. Nutter & Co. v. Estate of Murphy, 88 N.E.3d 1133, 1139 (Mass. 2018) (citation omitted). Read in the context of the entire contract, the court finds the last sentence of Article II is not ambiguous. It clearly applied only if, when the contract expired, Plaintiff had been reappointed by the mayor, but the City Council had not yet approved a subsequent contract. The alternative reading proposed by Plaintiff cannot be reconciled with Article XII, which provides for severance if the Plaintiff was not reappointed prior to the contract termination. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is, therefore, granted as to Count III. Counts IV, V, and VI each allege the mayor's decision not to reappoint Plaintiff was retaliatory in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act ("MWA") Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, s. 185 (Count IV); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, s. 4(4) (Count V); and Title VII (Count VI). Defendant seeks summary judgment on all three counts based on identical substantive arguments and, as to just Count V, on the grounds that Plaintiff waived his ch. 151B claims when he asserted a claim pursuant to the MWA. As explained below, the court denies summary judgment on Counts IV, V, and VI based on Defendant's substantive arguments, but grants the motion as to only Count V based on waiver pursuant to the MWA.In order to make out a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must show they engaged in protected conduct, were subjected to an adverse employment action, and there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. Mole v. Univ. of Mass., 814 N.E.2d 329, 338-39 (Mass. 2004). Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot state a prima facie case as to any of the retaliation counts because a failure to reappoint is not an adverse employment action. It places significant reliance on Felix v. Town of Kingston, a recent, brief, and unreported First Circuit decision that fully affirmed the legal reasoning of "the comprehensive decision below." No. 19-1774, 2021 WL 6102085, *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 23, 2021). In that decision, the lower court assumed the failure to reappoint was an adverse employment action, then determined there was no evidence of the required causal connection. Felix v. Town of Kingston, 15-cv-14022-DLC, Dkt. No. 88, 14-15 (D. Mass., Jul. 8, 2019). The First Circuit rebutted the plaintiffs arguments that the lower court had erred in construing the factual record, but did not address the lower court's legal conclusions, including the assumption that a failure to reappoint was an adverse employment action. Felix, 2021 WL 6102085 at *2-*3. While there may be specific situations when a failure to reappoint is not an adverse employment action, Defendant's suggestion of a categorical rule is inconsistent with the First Circuits approach in other types of cases alleging a failure to reappoint constituted an adverse employment action and does not support summary judgment for Counts IV, V, and VI. See, e.g., Welch v. Ciampa, 542 F.3d 927, 936 (1st Cir. 2008) (recognizing a failure to reappoint as an adverse employment action because it has consequences similar to other adverse employment actions).Defendant also argues it is entitled to summary judgment on Counts IV, V, and VI because the mayor had other, non-retaliatory reasons for electing not to reappoint and Plaintiff's allegations are too attenuated to support his retaliation claims. However, the strength of these arguments depends upon discounting Plaintiff's description of events and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn by a jury crediting those descriptions. For example, Plaintiff, relying on his own first-hand memories, disputes the significance, especially in 2018 as his contract term was ending, of events that Defendant has cited as giving rise to non-retaliatory reasons for the mayor's decision not to reappoint Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff has identified evidence that during the spring of 2018, the mayor and other decisionmakers considered Plaintiff's deposition in the hiring discrimination suit a significant factor in the decision to settle that litigation. To survive summary judgment, "[a]ll a plaintiff has to do is raise a genuine issue of facts as to whether [retaliation] motived the adverse employment action." Dominguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424, 433 (1st Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). As Plaintiff has done so here, the motion for summary judgment based on an insufficient factual record is denied as to Counts IV, V, and VI.Finally, Defendant argues it is entitled to summary judgment on Count V, Plaintiff's retaliation claim brought pursuant to ch. 151B, because Plaintiff waived that claim by bringing a claim under the MWA. When a plaintiff asserts a claim under the MWA it triggers "'a waiver by the plaintiff of the rights and remedies available to [the plaintiff], for the actions of the employer, under any other... state law, rule or regulation, or under the common law.'" McGinn v. Exec. Off. of Energy and Enviro. Affairs, 496 F.Supp.3d 541, 552 (D. Mass. 2020) (quoting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, s. 185(f)). Plaintiff now concedes his testimony in the civil suit may not have been a protected activity under the MWA and asks the court not to apply the MWA waiver to his ch. 151B claim for retaliation based on that deposition. The reach of the waiver provision is not, however, determined by the scope of a plaintiffs protected activity, but rather by the scope of the employer's conduct and the nature of the damages sought. Id. As both Plaintiff's MWA and ch. 151B claims seek damages arising from Defendant's decision not to reappoint Plaintiff, the MWA waiver applies to Count V and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to that count. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 71 SUR-REPLY to Motion re #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jeffrey A Neece. (Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 70 REPLY to Response to #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants' Reply to Opposition filed by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley. (Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 69 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Hearing on Dispositive Motion(s) held on 2/8/2022. (Attorneys present via Zoom video: Atty Smith-Lee for Plaintiff, Atty Lynch for Deft(s))Arguments heard re: #59 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defense requests extension of time to file reply brief. Defense to file by 2/11/2022. Plaintiff to reply by 2/18/2022. Court takes matter under advisement. (Court Reporter: Alice Moran alice.moran@verizon.net.) (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 68 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jeffrey A Neece. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 3, #3 Exhibit 4, #4 Exhibit 5, #5 Exhibit 6, #6 Exhibit 7, #7 Exhibit 8, #8 Exhibit 9, #9 Exhibit 10, #10 Exhibit 11, #11 Exhibit 12, #12 Exhibit 13, #13 Exhibit 14, #14 Exhibit 15, #15 Exhibit 16, #16 Exhibit 17, #17 Exhibit 18, #18 Exhibit 19, #19 Exhibit 20, #20 Exhibit 21, #21 Exhibit 22, #22 Exhibit 23, #23 Exhibit 24, #24 Exhibit 25, #25 Exhibit 26, #26 Exhibit 27)(Smith-Lee, Emily) #9 Exhibit #9) (Rivera, Christina). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2022: #29 Exhibit 2) (Rivera, Christina). Modified on 2/7/2022 to Add Exhibits #2 & #9 (Rivera, Christina). |
| Filing 67 Statement of Material Facts L.R. 56.1 re #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jeffrey A Neece. (Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 66 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jeffrey A Neece. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Jeffrey Neece, #2 Affidavit of Emily Smith-Lee)(Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 65 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Electronic Order entered granting #64 Assented to Motion for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Opposition. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before 1/24/2022. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 64 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #60 Statement of Material Facts L.R. 56.1,,,,,, #61 Memorandum in Support of Motion, #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Jeffrey A Neece.(Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 63 NOTICE by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley re #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment - Request for Oral Argument (Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 62 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION pursuant to LR 7.1 re #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Carole Sakowski Lynch on behalf of City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley. (Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 61 MEMORANDUM in Support re #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley. (Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 60 Statement of Material Facts L.R. 56.1 re #59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit Exhibit O, #16 Exhibit Exhibit P, #17 Exhibit Exhibit Q, #18 Exhibit Exhibit R, #19 Exhibit Exhibit S, #20 Exhibit Exhibit T, #21 Exhibit Exhibit U, #22 Exhibit Exhibit V, #23 Exhibit Exhibit W, #24 Exhibit Exhibit X, #25 Exhibit Exhibit Y, #26 Exhibit Exhibit Z, #27 Exhibit Exhibit AA, #28 Exhibit Exhibit BB, #29 Exhibit Exhibit CC, #30 Exhibit Exhibit DD, #31 Exhibit Exhibit EE, #32 Exhibit Exhibit FF, #33 Exhibit Exhibit GG, #34 Exhibit Exhibit HH, #35 Exhibit Exhibit II, #36 Exhibit Exhibit JJ, #37 Exhibit Exhibit KK, #38 Exhibit Exhibit LL, #39 Exhibit Exhibit MM, #40 Exhibit Exhibit NN, #41 Exhibit Exhibit OO, #42 Exhibit Exhibit PP, #43 Exhibit Exhibit QQ, #44 Exhibit Exhibit RR, #45 Exhibit Exhibit SS, #46 Exhibit Exhibit TT, #47 Exhibit Exhibit UU, #48 Exhibit Exhibit VV, #49 Exhibit Exhibit WW, #50 Exhibit Exhibit XX, #51 Exhibit Exhibit YY, #52 Exhibit Exhibit ZZ, #53 Exhibit Exhibit AAA, #54 Exhibit Exhibit BBB, #55 Exhibit Exhibit CCC)(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley.(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 58 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #56 Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to December 30, 2021 for Filing of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and #57 Emergency Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, both filed without objection from the Plaintiff. Defendants' new deadline for filing their motion for summary judgment is December 30, 2021 and the motion may be up to 25 pages in length. Plaintiff's opposition may also be up to 25 pages in length and shall be due on or before January 20, 2022. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 57 EMERGENCY MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Without Objection) by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley.(Lynch, Carole) Modified on 12/29/2021 correct docket text (Figueroa, Tamara). |
| Filing 56 EMERGENCY MOTION for Extension of Time to December 30, 2021 to for Filing of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Without Objection) by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley.(Lynch, Carole) Modified on 12/29/2021 correct docket text (Figueroa, Tamara). |
| Filing 55 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #52 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 54 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. SEVENTH REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: All depositions shall be completed by November 17, 2021. Dispositive Motions, if any, shall be filed by December 29, 2021. Oppositions shall be filed by January 19, 2022. A hearing on any filed dispositive motions will be held at 10:00 am on February 8, 2022. If no Motions for Summary Judgment are filed, this hearing shall be converted to an initial pre-trial conference. (Figueroa, Tamara) (Figueroa, Tamara). |
| Filing 53 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing: A hearing on any filed dispositive motions will be held at 10:00 am on February 8, 2022. If no Motions for Summary Judgment are filed, this hearing shall be converted to an initial pre-trial conference in the Hampden Courtroom (In person only) before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 52 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 11/29/2021 to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey A Neece.(Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 51 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER:Dispositive Motions, if any, shall be filed by October 29, 2021. Oppositions shall be filed by November 19, 2021. A hearing on any filed dispositive motions will be held at 10:00am on January 12, 2022. If no Motions for Summary Judgment are filed, this hearing shall be converted into an initial pre-trial conference.(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 50 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying #47 Motion for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Compel 46 . The cases relied upon by Defendant in its motion to reconsider are distinguishable from this case. Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated from his position as an employee with Defendant and that he suffered losses from that termination. This is not a case where Plaintiff alleges he was misclassified and the amount of income and expenses reported by a business entity he controlled is necessary to determine whether he would have received more compensation as an employee. Compare Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 17-cv-11414-NMG, 2019 WL 10959892 (D. Mass. Dec. 16, 2019); Viscito v. National Planning Corp., No. 3:18-cv-20132-MGM, 2019 WL 5318228 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2019). Nor is this a case where he has alleged he was unable to work and his ability to generate other income is relevant to the scope of his incapacity. Compare Driscoll v. McCann, No. 19-cv-12302-ADB, 2020 WL 5983272 (D. Mass. Oct. 8, 2020). As the court explained in its initial ruling on Defendant's Motion to Compel, Plaintiff's income from his rental property activity is only relevant to his duty to mitigate if he increased the time he spent on that activity after his termination. Defendant has asserted, in general terms, that Plaintiff has increased the number of his properties and that this means "he undoubtedly spends more time tending to them." (Dkt. No. 48 at 5). Plaintiff counters with more specific information, namely that he purchased one additional property approximately eight months after his termination. It is possible that Plaintiff's purchase of this property is relevant to the issue of his duty to mitigate, but that relevance depends on how much time he devoted to the new property compared to the existing properties--information that will not be found in his tax returns. The same is true with respect to Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's rental activity may have negatively impacted his job performance. His rental income may be relevant, but only if it is first established that he neglected his work as Defendant's employee to attend to his rental properties. Defendant must develop the facts necessary to establish relevance before it is entitled to discover Plaintiff's tax returns. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 49 Opposition re #47 MOTION for Reconsideration re 46 Order on Motion to Compel,,,, filed by Jeffrey A Neece. (Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 48 MEMORANDUM in Support re #47 MOTION for Reconsideration re 46 Order on Motion to Compel,,,, filed by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 47 MOTION for Reconsideration re 46 Order on Motion to Compel,,,, by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley.(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 46 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #42 Defendants' Motion to Compel. Defendant seeks production of Plaintiff's W-2 forms and federal tax returns for the years 2015 through present. With respect to the request for W-2 forms, Defendant has not made any specific arguments and Plaintiff asserts all W-2 forms have been provided. Defendants seek Plaintiff's tax returns in order to obtain information about income Plaintiff received from real properties held for investment. Defendants note that Plaintiff devoted 10-12 hours per week to managing the properties during the time he was employed by the city and asserts this activity makes the income from the real properties relevant to his alleged losses flowing from his termination. Defendants have not, however, asserted that the time Plaintiff spent on this activity changed following his termination. Without some basis for tying changes in Plaintiff's income from his real properties to his termination, the court finds this information is not relevant to Plaintiff's asserted damages. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 45 Opposition re #42 MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiff's W-2s and Federal Tax Returns filed by Jeffrey A Neece. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 44 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #43 Joint Motion to Enlarge Pre-Trial Schedule. Consistent with the parties request, the court vacates the deadlines for completion of discovery and dispositive motions set in #39 the court's most recent scheduling order issued in this case. The court extends the deadline for the completion of fact discovery, including depositions. The new deadline shall be two weeks after the court issues decisions on the discovery motions identified in the parties' filing. The court will issue new dates for dispositive motions when it rules on the discovery motions. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 43 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey A Neece.(Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 42 MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiff's W-2s and Federal Tax Returns by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley. (Attachments: #1 Memo In Support, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B)(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 41 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered granting #40 Joint Motion to Enlarge Pre-Trial Schedule. A revised scheduling order shall issue. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Enlarge Pre-Trial Schedule by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley.(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 39 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered granting #38 Joint Motion to Enlarge Pre-Trial Schedule. See the attached revised scheduling order. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 38 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 2 28 2021 to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey A Neece.(Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 37 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing: Case Management Conference previously set for 10/15/2020 is canceled per #35 Fourth Revised Scheduling Order. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 36 Set/Reset Hearings: Hearing for Dispositive Motion set for 3/17/2021 10:00 AM in Hampden Courtroom before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. If no Motions for Summary Judgment are filed, this hearing shall be converted to an Initial Pre-Trial Conference. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 35 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. FOURTH REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: See Order for complete details. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 34 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/18/2020 to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey A Neece.(Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 33 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. THIRD REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery to be completed by 10/16/2020 Motions due by 11/20/2020. It is So Ordered. See the attached order for complete details.(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 32 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #31 Motion for Extension of Time to October 16, 2020 to Complete Discovery. A revised scheduling order shall issue. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 31 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 10/16/2020 to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey A Neece.(Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 30 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. SECOND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: A hearing on any filed dispositive motions will be held at 10:00 am on October 15, 2020. If no Motions for Summary Judgment are filed, this hearing shall be converted to an initial pre-trial conference. It is So Ordered. See the attached order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 29 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #26 Joint Motion to Enlarge Pre-Trial Schedule. A revised scheduling order shall issue. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 28 NOTICE of Change of Address or Firm Name by Emily E. Smith-Lee (Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 27 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Aileen G. Konanez (Konanez, Aileen) |
| Filing 26 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to June 15, 2020 to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey A Neece.(Konanez, Aileen) |
| Filing 25 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER entered as follows: All non-expert written discovery and depositions shall be completed by April 13, 2020, Dispositive Motions, if any, shall be filed by May 13, 2020. Oppositions shall be filed by June 3, 2020 and a hearing on any filed dispositive motions will be held at 11:00 am on July 15, 2020 in Franklin Courtroom before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. If no Motions for Summary Judgment are filed, this hearing shall be converted to an initial pre-trial conference. It is So Ordered. See the attached scheduling order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 24 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #23 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. A revised scheduling order shall issue. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 23 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley.(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 22 ANSWER to #20 Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial by Sharyn Riley.(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 21 ANSWER to #20 Amended Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial by City of Chicopee.(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 20 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND against All Defendants, filed by Jeffrey A Neece.(Konanez, Aileen) |
| Filing 19 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #18 Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to Serve Written Discovery. The deadline for written discovery shall be 08/15/2019. All other dates remain as stated in the courts Scheduling Order of March 14, 2019. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 18 First MOTION for Extension of Time to August 15, 2019 to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey A Neece.(Konanez, Aileen) |
| Filing 16 STATE COURT Record City of Chicopee summons served on 1/18/2019, answer due 2/8/2019. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 17 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Scheduling Conference held on 3/14/2019. Present: Atty Konanez for pltf, Atty Lynch for defts. Court adopts proposed schedule. Order to issue (see Dkt. No. #15 ). (Court Reporter: Alice Moran at alice.moran@verizon.net.) (Bartlett, Timothy) |
| Filing 15 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: SCHEDULING ORDER entered as follows: A hearing on any filed dispositive motions will be held on 4/14/2020 at 11:00 AM in Franklin Courtroom before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. The Parties shall exchange automatic document disclosures by 5/1/2019, and Dispositive Motions, if any, shall be filed by 2/13/2020. See the attached order for full details. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 14 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #13 Motion to Appear Telephonically. (Bartlett, Timothy) |
| Filing 13 Assented to MOTION To Appear Telephonically at scheduling conference by Jeffrey A Neece.(Konanez, Aileen) |
| Filing 12 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 (D). (Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Aileen G. Konanez on behalf of Jeffrey A Neece (Konanez, Aileen) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Emily E. Smith-Lee on behalf of Jeffrey A Neece (Smith-Lee, Emily) |
| Filing 9 JOINT STATEMENT re scheduling conference . (Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference ISSUED. Scheduling Conference set for 3/14/2019 at 11:00 AM in Franklin Courtroom before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. Please see Notice for Details. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Sharyn Riley.(Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by City of Chicopee.(Lynch, Carole) |
|
|
| Filing 4 Remark: Mailed a certified copy of the Notice of Removal today to Defendants counsel for service on the State Court, in order to obtain the certified State Court record. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY PAYMENT OF FEES as to #1 Notice of Removal, by Defendants City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0101-7545686. Payment Type : INITIATING DOCUMENT. (Lynch, Carole) |
| Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by City of Chicopee, Sharyn Riley ( Fee Status: Paid) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E)(Lynch, Carole) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/15/2019: #6 Cover Sheet, #7 Category Sheet) (Lindsay, Maurice). Modified on 2/21/2019 (Lindsay, Maurice). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.