Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Citation
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-09-30
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
Full Text
660 charsWe are not detained by Qureshi’s argument that it was required that the Superior Court action and the summary process action be consolidated in the Superior Court. While a judge has discretion to allow a motion to consolidate, none was offered by Qureshi, and, in any event, allowance of such a motion is a matter of discretion. See Fafard v. Lincoln Pharmacy of Milford, Inc., 439 Mass. 512, 517 (2003); Kobayashi v. Orion Ventures, Inc., 42 Mass. App. Ct. 492, 504 (1997). In the instant case, the critical issue of tenant status had *470already been decided and it was sensible to proceed with summary process in the court most familiar with that procedure.