What is the name of your state?
Massachussett
My lawyer (without cunsulting me) agreed to the plaintifs motion to join my c.40A (A zoning appeal to superior court) case with my Civil case. He stated that this is routinely done for judicial economy. Under normal circumstances this is probably a good thing. However the plaintiffs were trying this case in the criminal courts, and before the criminal case was even heard, they filed this same case in the civil court.
Note: My c.40A case had already been filed about a year prior to the Civil case being filed.
Should my c.40A case be heard all by itself, I'm all but certain that we will prevail, and this will deflate 75% of their civil action.
More importantly, during the criminal case the plaitiffs brought in witnesses that had absolutely nothing to due with the charges, solely for the porpose to taint, confuse, and misfocus the jurors. Fortunately they were not allowed. Now , after seeing the witness list, it is all to clear that they are using the same tactics.
In my opinion, my lawyer has drafted a well articulated and compelling motion to sever. He argues that mass gen.law c.40A,ss 17, provides that all zoning appeals, shall have precedence over all other civil actions and proceedings. see e.g. Roberts v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, inc. 429 Mass 478,489 (1999).
My concern is that when the judge asks, Did you agree to join the cases? we are going to loose are request to sever. I truly believe that at the time, my lawyer did not anticipate the planitiffs tactical moves.
This all being said, I'm asking if you now of any other cases/ laws tested that support are arguement, and how should he answer the question ( did you/ why did you agree?) My gut says he should say " Your hounor, I'm sorry, I made a mistake and should not have agreed to it." I would like a little more than my gut feeling, as I know that if we loose this motion, it's going to be a long and expensive uphill battle. I cant believe the court would favor judicial economy over justice!!!
Ps. I know in motion hearings that no witnesses are not allowed, but can I and should I draft a memorandum to help support our case?
Massachussett
My lawyer (without cunsulting me) agreed to the plaintifs motion to join my c.40A (A zoning appeal to superior court) case with my Civil case. He stated that this is routinely done for judicial economy. Under normal circumstances this is probably a good thing. However the plaintiffs were trying this case in the criminal courts, and before the criminal case was even heard, they filed this same case in the civil court.
Note: My c.40A case had already been filed about a year prior to the Civil case being filed.
Should my c.40A case be heard all by itself, I'm all but certain that we will prevail, and this will deflate 75% of their civil action.
More importantly, during the criminal case the plaitiffs brought in witnesses that had absolutely nothing to due with the charges, solely for the porpose to taint, confuse, and misfocus the jurors. Fortunately they were not allowed. Now , after seeing the witness list, it is all to clear that they are using the same tactics.
In my opinion, my lawyer has drafted a well articulated and compelling motion to sever. He argues that mass gen.law c.40A,ss 17, provides that all zoning appeals, shall have precedence over all other civil actions and proceedings. see e.g. Roberts v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, inc. 429 Mass 478,489 (1999).
My concern is that when the judge asks, Did you agree to join the cases? we are going to loose are request to sever. I truly believe that at the time, my lawyer did not anticipate the planitiffs tactical moves.
This all being said, I'm asking if you now of any other cases/ laws tested that support are arguement, and how should he answer the question ( did you/ why did you agree?) My gut says he should say " Your hounor, I'm sorry, I made a mistake and should not have agreed to it." I would like a little more than my gut feeling, as I know that if we loose this motion, it's going to be a long and expensive uphill battle. I cant believe the court would favor judicial economy over justice!!!
Ps. I know in motion hearings that no witnesses are not allowed, but can I and should I draft a memorandum to help support our case?
Last edited: