From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Litton Business Telephone Systems v. Schwartz

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Feb 19, 1980
9 Mass. App. Ct. 847 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)

Opinion

February 19, 1980.

Bernard A. Kansky for the defendants.

Robert M. Gault ( W. Arthur Garrity, III, with him) for the plaintiff.


The appeal must be dismissed because the judgment entered on November 17, 1978, does not dispose of the counterclaim of the individual defendant and there has been no compliance with the requirements of the first sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 821 (1974). E.W. Foster Co. v. McLaughlin, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 865 (1979), and cases cited. No final judgment (G.L.c. 231, § 113, as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 202) is to be entered while the case remains in its present posture unless the judge who entered the orders of December 9, 1977, and October 23, 1978, shall first file with the papers an explanation of his reasons for striking the aforementioned counterclaim and defaulting both defendants rather than imposing one or more of the other sanctions available under Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), 365 Mass. 798-799 (1974). See Henshaw v. Travelers Ins. Co., 377 Mass. 910, 911 (1979).

Appeal dismissed


Summaries of

Litton Business Telephone Systems v. Schwartz

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Feb 19, 1980
9 Mass. App. Ct. 847 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
Case details for

Litton Business Telephone Systems v. Schwartz

Case Details

Full title:LITTON BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS, INC. vs. ARTHUR C. SCHWARTZ another

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Feb 19, 1980

Citations

9 Mass. App. Ct. 847 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
847 N.E.2d 281

Citing Cases

Teuscher v. Teuscher

Henshaw v. Travelers Ins. Co., 377 Mass. 910, 911 (1979). See Litton Business Tel. Sys., Inc. v. Schwartz,…

Tammaro v. Colarusso

We think it desirable, and in the future we may require, that a judge who allows a motion to dismiss under…