Opinion
No. 12–P–1222.
2013-05-14
Emmett S. MULDOON v. C.J. MULDOON & SONS CORP. & others.
By the Court (COHEN, SIKORA & SULLIVAN JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, acting pro se, appeals from an order denying his postjudgment motion to file a fifth amended complaint. The plaintiff originally filed this action in 2001, alleging, in substance, that in 1992 and 1993, his father and siblings improperly removed him as a director of the family's sheet metal business and terminated his employment. In 2006, a judge of the Superior Court dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed, and this court affirmed the dismissal. See Muldoon v. C.J. Muldoon & Sons Corp., 74 Mass.App.Ct. 1118 (2009). Judgment after rescript entered in September, 2009. More than two years later, in December, 2011, the plaintiff filed the motion to amend at issue in this appeal. A different judge of the Superior Court denied the motion, noting that the case was now closed.
There is no merit to the plaintiff's appeal, as an amended complaint cannot be filed in a closed case. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff's motion were viewed as one for relief from judgment pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), he has stated no valid or timely ground for reopening the case. See generally Owens v. Mukendi, 448 Mass. 66, 71–77 (2006). In short, the judge's order reflects no error of law or abuse of discretion. The order denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint is therefore affirmed.
So ordered.