Which Lawyers Win Before Your Judge?

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know Your Judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know The Lawyers

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know Your Court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Massachusetts Unified County

Court

Massachusetts Unified County

Massachusetts

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2023-03-28
Status Open
Type Torts|Other Tortious Action
Docket 16 entries

Parties

Plaintiff Palladino, Gerard
Defendant Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc.|Karamouz, Nima|Barbagalallo, Salvatore

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. Case assigned to: DCM Track F - Fast Track was added on 03/28/2023
  2. Complaint electronically filed.
  3. Civil action cover sheet filed.
  4. Service Returned for Defendant Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc.: Service accepted by counsel;
  5. Service Returned for Defendant Karamouz, Nima: Service accepted by counsel; See P#3
  6. Service Returned for Defendant Barbagalallo, Salvatore: Service accepted by counsel; See P#3
  7. Attorney appearance electronically filed. Applies To: Nadreau, Esq., Joshua D (Attorney) on behalf of Barbagalallo, Salvatore, Karamouz, Nima, Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc. (Defendant)
  8. Attorney appearance electronically filed. Applies To: Desai, Esq., Deepa K (Attorney) on behalf of Barbagalallo, Salvatore, Karamouz, Nima, Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc. (Defendant)
  9. Defendants's Notice of intent to file motion to dismiss Applies To: Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc. (Defendant); Karamouz, Nima (Defendant); Barbagalallo, Salvatore (Defendant)
  10. Defendants Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc., Nima Karamouz, Salvatore Barbagalallo's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or in the Alternative, Stay This Action
  11. Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc., Nima Karamouz, Salvatore Barbagalallo's Memorandum in support of Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay This Action
  12. Brief filed: Reply in Support of their Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay This Action Applies To: Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc. (Defendant); Karamouz, Nima (Defendant); Barbagalallo, Salvatore (Defendant)
  13. Affidavit of compliance with Superior Court Rule 9C See P#5 Applies To: Desai, Esq., Deepa K (Attorney) on behalf of Barbagalallo, Salvatore, Karamouz, Nima, Subaru Of Wakefield, Inc. (Defendant)
  14. Plaintiff Gerard Palladino's Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss, or in the Alternative Stay This Action
  15. Gerard Palladino's Memorandum of Law in Support of His Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss, or in the Alternative Stay This Action
  16. Endorsement on motion to compel Other (#5.0): Arbitration and Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay this Action ALLOWED The parties do not dispute that arbitration of the claims alleged in the complaint is required pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement plaintiff signed on 11/20/20. The Motion to Compel Arbitration is ALLOWED. However, the parties dispute how the fees are to be allocated. Based on the opening paragraph of the Arbitration Agreement which states "In consideration of continued development..." and the Agreement's reliance on JAMS rules, plaintiff is only required to pay a JAMS Case Management Fee. The part of defendant's motion seeking an allocation of Arbitrator & Other Fees to be shared pro-rata is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Dated 6/20/23

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more