Filing Motions In Massachusetts

Summary

In Massachusetts, a defendant cannot file an answer while a motion to dismiss is pending. The court will decide on the motion to dismiss first. If denied, the defendant must file an answer within a specified period. If a case is removed from state court and the remand deadline falls on a weekend, filing can occur the next business day. A motion to remand is typically addressed before a motion to dismiss, as courts resolve jurisdictional issues first.

Full Conversation

The defendant removed the case from the state supreme court on February *, *. I appears that the 30 day deadline to file for a rmand falls on March *, * (Saturday). Does that mean that I can file for a remand as late as Monday March *?
Yes, since March *, *, falls on a Saturday, you can file for a remand on the next business day, which would be Monday, March *, *.
Do you have any other concerns or questions about your case?
If I file for a remand would the court have to hear this motion first before Defendants motion to dismiss?
In Massachusetts, if you file a motion to remand, the court will generally address the remand motion first before considering the defendant's motion to dismiss. Courts typically resolve jurisdictional issues prior to examining the merits of the case.
Is there anything else you'd like to know about this process?
if the case is remanded how does that impact the 14 day district court deadline for filing an objection to the motion to dismiss?
Case Rating: *
If the case is remanded, the *-day district court deadline for filing an objection to the motion to dismiss would no longer be applicable in the federal court. The state court will then set its own deadlines for any objections or responses.
Do you have any other questions or concerns about your case?
if the case is NOT remanded would the 14 day district court deadline for filing an objection to the motion to dismiss still hold or would it be impacted by the time the court takes to decide on a remand motion?
Case Rating: *
If the case is not remanded, the *-day district court deadline for filing an objection to the motion to dismiss would typically still hold. However, this deadline could be impacted or extended by the court's decision on the remand motion.
Do you have any more questions about this process?
would the court decide that deadline sua sponte or would i have to ask for it?
Case Rating: *
The court may decide to extend deadlines sua sponte (on its own) if it deems it necessary. However, it is often advisable to file a motion requesting an extension to ensure clarity and to avoid any potential misunderstandings.
Do you have any other questions or concerns about your case?
instead of filing an objection to the motion to dismiss can I ask the court to amend the complaint?
Case Rating: *
Yes, you can ask the court for permission to amend your complaint instead of filing an objection to the motion to dismiss. Here are some general steps:
- File a motion to amend the complaint.
- Attach the proposed amended complaint.
- Provide reasons why the amendment is necessary.
Would you like more detailed information about filing a motion to amend in Massachusetts?
or is is better to ask for leave of court to amend?
Case Rating: *
It is generally advisable to ask for leave of court to amend your complaint, especially if you are seeking to address issues raised in a motion to dismiss. This shows you are taking a proactive approach to correct any deficiencies in your complaint.
Would you like more detailed information about the process of filing for leave to amend your complaint in Massachusetts?
if the amended motion brings to light additional serious counts can the defendant object to the amendment
Case Rating: *
Yes, the defendant can object to the amendment if the amended complaint introduces additional serious counts or new claims. The court will then decide whether to allow the amendment based on the merits of the objection and the circumstances of the case.
Do you have more specific details about the additional counts or the overall context of your case?
is it better than to voluntarily dismiss the case under FRCP * and file anew in the state court
Case Rating: *
Whether or not to voluntarily dismiss your case under FRCP * and refile in state court depends on several factors including the specifics of your case, the strategic advantages of the state versus the federal court, and the potential legal implications.
Would you like to share more details about the additional counts or the nature of your case? This can help in providing more tailored advice.
what are the potential legal implications
Case Rating: *
The potential legal implications of voluntarily dismissing your case under FRCP * and refiling in state court include:
- Statute of Limitations: Ensure that refiling in state court does not violate any statute of limitations.
- Costs: You may incur additional costs in refiling.
- Strategy: Consider if the state court offers strategic advantages over federal court.
- Jurisdiction: Ensure the state court has proper jurisdiction.
Do you have more details about the additional counts or the specific nature of your case?
can i join a land court case after the superior court complaint is filed, to argue that that land court case decision should be vacated due to the fraud upon the court ?
Case Rating: *
In Massachusetts, joining an existing Land Court case after a Superior Court complaint is filed to argue for vacating a Land Court decision due to fraud may be complex. Here are some general steps:
- File a motion to intervene in the Land Court case.
- Present evidence of fraud.
- Request the court to vacate the decision.
Do you have any more details or specific concerns regarding the alleged fraud? This can help in providing more tailored advice.
to clarify the land Court case has been closed since *, however there is new information indicating fraud
Case Rating: *
You may have a strong case to reopen the Land Court decision due to the new evidence of fraud. Here are some general guidelines:
- File a motion to reopen the case in Land Court.
- Present the new evidence indicating fraud.
- Request the court to vacate the previous decision based on the fraudulent information.
Would you like to share more details about the nature of the fraud?
does MRCP *(b) allow to address fraud in the older land court case in the superior court?
Case Rating: *
MRCP *(b) allows for relief from a judgment due to fraud, but it generally applies to the same court that issued the judgment. You might need to file in Land Court, not Superior Court.
Do you need more information on how to proceed with MRCP *(b) in Land Court?
the * land court case concluded with the judgment assigning to mortgage to the REMIC trust which was closed since april *. The assignment was done on the basis of enforcing the settlement agreement without adjudication on the merits. The land court preserved the counterclaims without prejudice. Do I have to worry about any resjudicate or claim preclusion issues?
Case Rating: *
You might be concerned about res judicata or claim preclusion issues due to the Land Court preserving counterclaims without prejudice and the judgment being based on enforcing a settlement agreement. Here are some points to consider:
- Res Judicata: Generally, this doctrine prevents the same parties from litigating the same issue that has already been resolved by a competent court.
- Claim Preclusion: This might not apply here since your counterclaims were preserved without prejudice, indicating you could still pursue them.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your preserved counterclaims?
does fraud upon the court impact res judicata doctrine?
Case Rating: *
Fraud upon the court can indeed impact the res judicata doctrine. Here's how:
- Res Judicata Exception: Fraud upon the court is an exception to res judicata. If proven, it can nullify the previous judgment.
- Reopening Cases: Courts may reopen cases if fraud upon the court is established.
Would you like more detailed information on proving fraud upon the court?
The alleged fraud upon the court is based on the new information from the securitization audit. Could the court alleged that such securitization audit could have been obtained at the time the case was active and reject to even look into the potential issue of fraud?
Case Rating: *
Yes, the court could argue that the securitization audit could have been obtained when the case was active and potentially reject the new evidence. However, there are arguments to counter this, such as demonstrating that the information was not discoverable with reasonable diligence at that time.
Would you like more detailed information on how to counter such an argument?
at the time the opposing side argued that they have in their possession the promissory note, subsequently as part of debt validation they mailed me a different version of the promissory note. This raised questions regarding authenticity of the promissory note and led to obtaining the securitization audit pointing that the opposing side does not have a promissory note in their possession. How could I use this information in defeating res judicata defense?
Case Rating: *
You can use this information to challenge the res judicata defense by arguing that the fraud was not discoverable with reasonable diligence during the original case. Here are some key points:
- Present evidence of the conflicting promissory notes.
- Highlight the findings of the securitization audit.
- Argue that the new evidence reveals the fraud upon the court.
Do you have any more specific details or concerns about this process?
given the above background is it better to attempt to remand to state court or to voluntarily dismiss and restart in state courts?
Case Rating: *
Given the complexities and potential for fraud upon the court, both remanding to state court and voluntarily dismissing to refile in state court have their own strategic advantages and risks. Here are some points to consider:
- Remand to State Court:
- Maintains continuity of the case.
- You can address the jurisdictional issue first.
- May be quicker than starting anew.
- Voluntarily Dismiss and Restart in State Court:
- Provides a fresh start without the procedural baggage.
- Allows you to amend the complaint more freely.
- Potentially avoids federal jurisdiction issues.
Would you like more detailed information on the strategic advantages of each option?
is there a potential procedural baggage given voluntary dismissal without prejudice?
Case Rating: *
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice can carry some procedural baggage. Here are a few considerations:
- Statute of Limitations: Ensure you're within the limits for refiling.
- Costs: Additional filing and legal fees.
- Strategic Position: Opposing party may be better prepared in a new case.
Would you like further information on any specific aspect?
Am I correct concluding that first time Voluntarily Dismissal under FRCP *(a) without prejudice and Restart in State Court will be not subject to res judicata as well as issue and claim preclusion?
Case Rating: *
Yes, you are correct. A first-time voluntary dismissal under FRCP *(a) without prejudice generally will not be subject to res judicata, issue preclusion, or claim preclusion. This is because the dismissal without prejudice means the case has not been decided on the merits.
Do you need more details on the implications of refiling in state court?
which FRCP defines what is an answer vs pre-answer motion that challenges the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint?
Case Rating: *
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that defines what is an answer versus a pre-answer motion challenging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint is Rule *.
- Rule *(b): Allows a defendant to file a motion to dismiss for specific reasons such as lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, etc., before filing an answer.
what is the meaning of FRCP *(d) Result of Presenting Matters Outside the Pleadings. If, on a motion under Rule *(b)(*) or *(c) , matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule *?
Case Rating: *
FRCP *(d) means that if, during a motion to dismiss under Rule *(b)(*) or Rule *(c), the court considers matters outside the pleadings (like evidence or documents), the motion must be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule *. This means the court will follow the procedures for summary judgment, which includes considering all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Do you have any further questions about this process or how it might impact your case?
how would i determine whether the court is considering matters outside the pleadings (like evidence or documents)>
Case Rating: *
To determine whether the court is considering matters outside the pleadings:
- Check if the court has reviewed or mentioned evidence or documents not included in the pleadings.
- Look for a notice from the court stating it will treat the motion as one for summary judgment.
Do you need more information on how to proceed if the court is considering such matters?
would the court review or mention evidence or documents not included in the pleadings before my filing of an objection within 14 days?
Case Rating: *
The court generally does not review or mention evidence or documents not included in the pleadings before your filing of an objection within 14 days. The court will typically consider the materials presented in the pleadings first.
Do you have any other questions or concerns?
Why would the court decide whether it needs to review evidence or documents not included in the pleadings? Can you givee an example?
Case Rating: *
The court may decide to review evidence or documents not included in the pleadings to ensure a fair and comprehensive consideration of the case. This usually happens when:
- The defendant presents new evidence in their motion that wasn't included in the original pleadings.
- Additional context or information is necessary to resolve a specific legal issue.
Example:
- If the defendant submits an affidavit with new facts in a motion to dismiss, the court might review it to understand the context better.
Do you have any more specific concerns about your case?
So to avoid any issues with voluntary dismissal under FCRP *(a) I should file for dismissal without filing an objection to the motion to dismiss, and prior to the 14 day filing deadline. That way the court will not have an opportunity to decide whether it will treat defendants motion as summary judgments under rule *. Am I correct?
Case Rating: *
Yes, to avoid potential issues, you can voluntarily dismiss your case under FRCP *(a) without filing an objection to the motion to dismiss. This should be done prior to the *-day filing deadline. This approach prevents the court from treating the defendant's motion as a summary judgment under Rule *.
Would you like more detailed information on the process for voluntarily dismissing your case under FRCP *(a)?
Local district court rule *.* (*) states "Motion Practice. No motion shall be filed unless counsel certify that they have conferred and have attempted in good faith to resolve or narrow the issue." When I file a first motion to dismiss under *(a) it appears that defendants has no say whether that motion should be allowed. In such instance am I required to follow *.*(a)?
Case Rating: *
You're correct that under FRCP *(a), you can voluntarily dismiss your case without the need for the defendant's approval. However, Rule *.*(a) generally applies to motions that require the court to resolve an issue between the parties. Since voluntary dismissal under FRCP *(a) doesn't involve such an issue, you usually wouldn't need to follow Rule *.*(a) for this specific motion.
Are there any other aspects of your case you'd like to discuss?
what is the difference between proof of claim proceedings in a bankruptcy court compared to a civil case proceeding in state or federal court?
Case Rating: *
Proof of claim proceedings in bankruptcy court and civil case proceedings in state or federal court differ significantly:
- Bankruptcy Court:
- Focuses on creditor claims against the debtor’s estate.
- Involves submitting proofs of claim to establish debts owed.
- Overseen by a bankruptcy trustee.
- Can result in discharge of debts.
- Civil Case (State/Federal Court):
- Deals with disputes between parties.
- Involves litigation with complaints, answers, and motions.
- Overseen by a judge or jury.
- Results in judgments or settlements.
Do you have a specific concern related to a bankruptcy case?
how to evaluate whether the alleged mortgage can provide sufficient proof of claim?
Case Rating: *
To evaluate whether an alleged mortgage can provide sufficient proof of claim in Massachusetts, consider the following points:
- Original Note: Ensure the original promissory note is available.
- Assignment: Verify proper assignment of the mortgage.
- Chain of Title: Confirm an unbroken chain of title.
- Proof of Debt: Ensure all documents proving the debt are in order.
Do you have any specific concerns or additional details about the mortgage in question?
the alleged mortgage obtained a judgment from the land court for the assignment of mortgage based on their claim that they are in possession of the original promissory note. Which now appears not to be the case. Can they use it as a proof of claim?
Case Rating: *
It seems like you have a strong case regarding potential fraud due to the inconsistency with the promissory note. Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Can the alleged mortgage use that judgment as a proof of claim if i do not dispute the authenticity of the promissory note or would they still be required to produce the promissory note?
Case Rating: *
In Massachusetts, even if you do not dispute the authenticity of the promissory note, the alleged mortgagee would typically still be required to produce the original promissory note as proof of claim, especially in cases involving foreclosures or assignments.
Do you have any more specific details or questions about this process?
What could be the impact of litigation of a wrongful foreclosure on later adversary proceedings in the bankruptcy court? Are there possible res judicata issues?
Case Rating: *
The impact of litigation of a wrongful foreclosure on later adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court can include:
- Res Judicata: The principle may apply, potentially barring re-litigation of issues that were or could have been raised in the previous case.
- Collateral Estoppel: Specific factual determinations made in the wrongful foreclosure case may be binding in the bankruptcy case.
Is there a specific aspect of your bankruptcy case you're concerned about?
Is there a way to effect a production of a promissory note in the civil proceeding similar to proof of claim in a bankruptcy case?
Case Rating: *
Yes, in a civil proceeding, you can request the production of a promissory note through discovery. Here are some steps:
- File a request for production of documents.
- Specifically ask for the original promissory note.
- Use depositions or interrogatories to get more information.
Do you need more details on how to file a request for production of documents in Massachusetts?
Is proof of claim proceeding easier in the bankruptcy court compared to other courts?
Case Rating: *
Proof of claim proceedings can be easier in bankruptcy court compared to other courts due to the structured process. Here are some points to consider:
- Bankruptcy courts have specific procedures and forms for submitting proofs of claim.
- Claims are reviewed by a bankruptcy trustee.
- Simplified process compared to the discovery and litigation in civil courts.
Do you have any more questions about the proof of claim process?
What happens in a bankruptcy court if the alleged mortgage submits a promissory note as a proof of claim and I submit to the court a different version of the promissory note the mortgagee previously sent me??
Case Rating: *
In a bankruptcy court, if the alleged mortgagee submits a promissory note as proof of claim and you submit a different version of the promissory note previously sent to you, the court will likely:
- Scrutinize both versions of the promissory note.
- Investigate the authenticity and validity of each document.
- Hold hearings to resolve the dispute over the conflicting notes.
- Potentially appoint an expert to analyze the documents.

This could significantly impact the mortgagee's claim and might reveal issues such as fraud or improper documentation.
Do you have specific concerns about how to present your evidence?
How would that differ from the process in the superior court if I claim in the complaint a potential fraud and present bothe version of the promissory note that the alleged mortgage sent me?
Case Rating: *
In a Massachusetts Superior Court, if you claim potential fraud and present both versions of the promissory note, the process would include:
- Pleading Stage: File a complaint outlining the fraud and presenting both versions of the note.
- Discovery: Request the production of documents, depositions, and interrogatories to gather more evidence.
- Motion Practice: File motions to compel the production of the original promissory note and any related documents.
- Hearing/Trial: Present your evidence and witnesses to the court, which will consider the authenticity and validity of the promissory notes.
Do you have specific concerns about how to proceed with your fraud claim in Superior Court?