Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

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 your attorney

    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 and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

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 2024-04-12
Status Open
Type Violation Of Antitrust Or Trade Regulation Laws
Docket 16 entries

Parties

Plaintiff Myers, Stephan
Defendant Crum & Forster Insurance

Docket Entries

  1. JUDGMENT on Defendants, Crum & Forster Insurance 12(b) motion to dismiss against Plaintiff(s) Stephan Myers. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: that the complaint and all claims thereunder be and hereby are dismissed. Attested copies mailed on 11/19/2024 to: Scott Carroll, Esq., 25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 201, Braintree, MA 02184 Michaela M. Hinckley-Gordon, Esq.,, One Turks Head Place, Suite 1330, Providence, RI 02903 Stephan Myers, 364 East Falmouth Highway, #208, East Falmouth, MA 02536
  2. Civil action cover sheet filed.
  3. Affidavit of Indigency and request for waiver substitution of state payment of fees and costs filed without Supplemental affidavit
  4. Determination regarding normal fees and costs ALLOWED FORTHWITH by Clerk , pursuant to G. L. c. 261, 27C(2). Filing Fee, Surcharge, and Summons. A True, Attested Copy of Affidavit, and Determination MAILED to SM.
  5. Service Returned for Defendant Crum & Forster Insurance: Service via certified mail; on April 26, 2024, and then by First Class Mail on May 1, 2024. Applies To: Crum & Forster Insurance (Defendant)
  6. APPEARANCE FILED BY Scott M. Carroll, Esq., for Crum & Forster Insurance
  7. ANSWER WITH A JURY DEMAND filed by Scott M. Carroll, Esq., for Crum & Forster Insurance
  8. AMENDED ANSWER to original complaint with Jury Claim
  9. APPEARANCE; Attorney appearance electronically filed. Applies To: Hinckley-Gordon, Esq., Michaela M (Attorney) on behalf of Crum & Forster Insurance (Defendant)
  10. Rule 9A list of documents filed. Applies To: Carroll, Esq., Scott (Attorney) on behalf of Crum & Forster Insurance (Defendant)
  11. Defendant Crum & Forster Insurance's Motion to dismiss all counts
  12. Crum & Forster Insurance's Memorandum in support of P#10.1
  13. Request for hearing filed Applies To: Carroll, Esq., Scott (Attorney) on behalf of Crum & Forster Insurance (Defendant)
  14. Affidavit of compliance with Superior Court Rule 9A, Superior Court Rule 9C No opposition Applies To: Carroll, Esq., Scott (Attorney) on behalf of Crum & Forster Insurance (Defendant)
  15. Rule 12 Hearing scheduled on 11/14/2024: Held as Scheduled Comments: 1st Session: FTR (SDC) Appeared: Plaintiff - Stephan Myers, Failed to Appear Defendant - Michaela M Hinckley-Gordon, Esq.
  16. Endorsement on Motion to dismiss all counts (#10.1): ALLOWED This motion to dismiss came before me for hearing today at which time the defendant appeared through counsel but the pro se plaintiff did not appear. Counsel for the defendant sought to contact the plaintiff but the call went to voice mail. The docket reflects that notice of the hearing was emailed to the plaintiff on October 29, 2024. The file also reflects that the plaintiff did not serve any opposition to the motion to dismiss. A pro se litigant has no right to a relaxation of the standards that apply to litigants who are represented by counsel. However, I am cognizant of the plaintiff's pro se status, but such status cannot excuse both the failure to file an opposition and to appear for a scheduled hearing. I agree with the defendant's position that the DIA is the appropriate forum for adjudication of the issues raised by the plaintiff. The motion to dismiss is allowed.

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.

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

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