Herrick v. Essex

15 Citing cases

  1. Trindade v. Grove Servs.

    91 F.4th 486 (1st Cir. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    As the district court properly noted, Massachusetts has " 'liberal' rules governing the amendment and relation back of pleadings." Herrick v. Essex Reg'l Ret. Bd., 68 Mass.App.Ct. 187, 861 N.E.2d 32, 35 (2007); see also Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 518 (2d Cir. 2013) (explaining that Rule 15(c)(1)(A) directs courts to look to "the entire body of limitations law that provides the applicable statute of limitations," not merely the "limitations law's test for relation back"). Underpinning this "liberal approach to the amendment of pleadings, and their retrospective effect," is the theory that "if an action was timely brought at the outset, every consideration ought to be given [to] an amendment which would prevent the plaintiff's claim from being lost if an amendment were not allowed."

  2. Trindade v. Grove Servs.

    Civil Action 19-cv-10717-ADB (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Massachusetts' “liberal rules governing the amendment and relation back of pleadings,” Herrick v. Essex Reg. Ret. Bd., 861 N.E.2d 32, 35 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007), allow for new claims to “relate[] back” to earlier pleadings where the claims “ar[ises] out of the [same] conduct, transaction, or occurrence[,]” Mass. R. Civ. P. 15(c). Defendants complain that Plaintiff never explained his reason for not including the 2016 claims in the original complaint, [ECF No. 222 at 29-31], but “[t]he addition of new claims to an amended pleading does not alone defeat relation back; the question instead is whether the initial pleading provided a defendant with adequate notice of the potential new claims[,]” Quaak v. Dexia, S.A., 445 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (D. Mass. 2006). Here, it is undisputable that Plaintiff's initial pleading provided Defendants with “adequate notice of the potential new claims” as the Defendants' wage and commission payment practices were the entire subject matter of that first complaint.

  3. Cayo v. Fitzpatrick

    95 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D. Mass. 2015)   Cited 9 times

    Under Massachusetts law, “[w]henever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment (including an amendment changing a party) relates back to the original pleading.”. Mass.R.Civ.P. 15(c). At the same time, Massachusetts courts have cited multiple factors which they deem relevant to determining whether to allow a motion to amend the complaint to add a new party, including variants of the following: “(1) whether an honest mistake had been made in selecting the proper party; (2) whether joinder of the real party in interest had been requested within a reasonable time after the mistake was discovered; (3) whether joinder is necessary to avoid an injustice; and (4) whether joinder would prejudice the nonmoving party.” Berman v. Linnane, 434 Mass. 301, 748 N.E.2d 466, 470 (2001); see also Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 68 Mass.App.Ct. 187, 861 N.E.2d 32 (2007) (court has discretion to deny motion to amend complaint to add/substitute party under Mass.R.Civ.P. 15(c) and Mass.Gen.L. ch. 231, § 51 based on considerations of unjust delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice). Congress did not include a statute of limitations in Section 1983 statutory scheme.

  4. In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig.

    995 F. Supp. 2d 125 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that there was no mistake concerning the proper party's identity because "[t]he plaintiff has sued the right defendant, and simply neglected to sue another defendant who might also be liable"

    The Court retains discretion under Massachusetts law to deny leave to amend if a defendant, whether in substitution or addition, would be unduly prejudiced. See, e.g., Herrick v. Essex Reg'l Ret. Bd., 68 Mass.App.Ct. 187, 191–92, 861 N.E.2d 32, 36–37 (2007). North China points to Krupski's recognition that “[a] prospective defendant who legitimately believed that the limitations period had passed without any attempt to sue him has a strong interest in repose.”

  5. Butler v. Bd. of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liab. Policies & Bonds

    11-P-789 (Mass. Apr. 19, 2012)

    In addition, it is questionable whether the plaintiff's appeal of the board's decision was timely filed. See Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 187, 189-190 (2007) (actions under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, must be filed within thirty days of receiving notice of final agency action). We do not rely on this defect, as the record does not demonstrate when the plaintiff received the notice from the board.

  6. In re Valuation of Bell Atlantic Mobile

    456 Mass. 728 (Mass. 2010)   Cited 6 times

    For several reasons, including that judgment entered in the Newton assessors' favor on their § 39 appeal for FY 2004: that the Newton assessors could not have foreseen the jurisdictional implications that the board in 2008 determined were embedded in its 2006 decision within the thirty-day timeline for filing appeals; that after Bell All. Mobile I was decided, the Newton assessors did not abandon their FY 2004 § 39 appeal but rather sought to keep it alive by moving to consolidate it with Bell Atlantic Mobilesstill pending § 65 appeals; and that the Newton assessors' timely filings with regard to its other § 39 appeals indicate that Newton took all available actions to seek relief, we think the circumstances surrounding the Newton assessors' FY 2004 § 39 appeal are exceptional and operate to excuse their failure to file a timely appeal from the 2006 decision. Sec Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 187, 190 (2007) (failure to file appeal timely typically absolute bar to plaintiffs ability to obtain judicial review of final agency action, but rare exceptions exist). On remand, the board should consider Newton's § 39 petition for FY 2004 as if it had been timely appealed.

  7. Grandoit v. Mass. Rehab. Comm'n

    94 Mass. App. Ct. 1117 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019)

    Failure to timely file a complaint will bar a plaintiff's ability to obtain judicial review of a final agency action. Herrick v. Essex RegionalRetirement Bd., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 187, 189-190 (2007). See Calnan v. Planning Bd. of Lynn, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 384, 389 (2005) ("Timely filing in court is a jurisdictional prerequisite in appeals from administrative decisions").

  8. Cucchi v. City of Newton

    108 N.E.3d 1006 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018)

    "With extremely rare exceptions not relevant here, failure to timely file is ... typically an absolute bar to a plaintiff's ability to obtain judicial review of a final agency action." Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 187, 190, 861 N.E.2d 32 (2007). The plaintiffs argue that the thirty-day requirement is now modified by the reference in § 44 to proceedings in the Superior Court being governed by G. L. c. 30A, § 14, which the plaintiffs view as incorporating § 14 in its entirety into § 44. It follows, the plaintiffs argue, that § 44 is subject to the provision in § 14(1) that an action for judicial review

  9. Plymouth Ret. Bd. v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd.

    17-P-23 (Mass. App. Ct. Feb. 16, 2018)

    "With extremely rare exceptions not relevant here, failure to timely file is thus typically an absolute bar to a plaintiff's ability to obtain judicial review of a final agency action." Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 187, 189-190 (2007). See G. L. c. 260, § 36 (allowing party to "relate back" to original complaint for counterclaims not cross claims).

  10. Plymouth Ret. Bd. v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd.

    92 Mass. App. Ct. 1128 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018)

    "With extremely rare exceptions not relevant here, failure to timely file is thus typically an absolute bar to a plaintiff's ability to obtain judicial review of a final agency action." Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 187, 189–190 (2007). See G. L. c. 260, § 36 (allowing party to "relate back" to original complaint for counterclaims not cross claims).