Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)

Citation
Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
Parent Document
Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2019-02-25

Full Text

588 chars
Here, we have no doubt that the judge implicitly denied the plaintiffs' motions for sanctions by choosing neither to schedule the motions for hearing, nor to address the motions in his order allowing the motion to dismiss the complaint. Thus, the judge declined to hear or explicitly rule on those motions because he necessarily viewed them as meritless or moot.8 We find no abuse of discretion. Avery v. Steele, 414 Mass. 450, 457 (1993) ("Court[s] ... have wide discretion to determine when a party or attorney before them has acted in a manner warranting the imposition of sanctions").