DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 18

Citation
Section 18
Parent Document
Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2000-02-11
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8353877/mogilevsky-v-keating/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text

610 chars 
The King court recognized that “|n]o Massachusetts appellate decision has yet wrestled with the question whether the failure to name a party in the complaint filed with the MCAD precludes a later court action against the unnamed party without exception." King, 46 Mass.App.Ct. at 374, citing Chatman v. Gentle Dental Center of Waltham, 973 F.Sup. 228, 233 (D.Mass. 1997). Even so, the Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court’s granting of summary judgment for the King defendant because the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements of G.L.c. 15 IB, §§5 and 9. King, 46 Mass.App.Ct. at 375.