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 2022-06-30
Status Closed
Type Eqa Equitable Action Involving Any Right, Title Or Interest In Land, G.l. Chapter 185, 1 (k)
Docket 94 entries

Parties

Plaintiff Dupont Kuhawski, Renee
Defendant Pyle, Iii, Osmant K.|Pyle, Phyllis S.

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. Stipulation of Dismissal - Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii)
  2. Case assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
  3. Land Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 432187 Date: 06/30/2022
  4. Land Court surcharge Receipt: 432187 Date: 06/30/2022
  5. Land Court summons Receipt: 432187 Date: 06/30/2022
  6. Uniform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
  7. Plaintiff's Motion for Short Order of Notice, filed.
  8. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed.
  9. Proposed Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed.
  10. Affidavit of Renee Dupont-Kujawski, filed.
  11. Summons and Hearing Notice issued on Application for Preliminary Injunction. Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Date: 07/25/2022 Time: 02:00 PM
  12. Appearance of Philip W Gasbarro, Esq. for Osmant K. Pyle, III, Phyllis S. Pyle, filed
  13. Defendants' Objection to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed.
  14. Event Resulted: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction scheduled on: 07/25/2022 02:00 PM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding July 25, 2022. Hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction held by videoconference. Attorney Michael E. Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiff, and Attorney Philip W. Gasbarro appeared for the defendants. The plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction from the court pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 65 and/or G. L. c. 93, 42A enjoining the defendants from: (1) obstructing the disputed parcel, an approximately twenty foot wide strip of land adjacent to Plaintiff's property located in Webster which is used as a right of way and access road, among other claimed uses; (2) otherwise interfering with Plaintiff's rights to use the disputed parcel to pass and repass and to access Plaintiff's property as well as to access Webster Lake, and; (3) installing any impediment on the disputed parcel during the pendency of this action. The defendants argue that the language of the consent decree which resulted from prior litigation does not provide for the same types of uses over the disputed area that the plaintiff claims. Following argument, the court ALLOWED the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, with a separate written order to issue. The court scheduled a case management conference to be held via videoconference at 11:00 a.m. on August 16, 2022. (Smith, J.).
  15. Answer of Osmant K. Pyle, III, Phyllis S. Pyle filed.
  16. Cost of Issuance of TRO/PI Receipt: 432802 Date: 07/26/2022
  17. Decision and Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, issued. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Michael Brangwynne, Adam Ponte, and Philip Gasbarro) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  18. Event Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Case Management Conference Date: 08/16/2022 Time: 11:00 AM
  19. Joint Case Management Conference Statement, filed.
  20. Answer of Plaintiff to Counterclaim, filed.
  21. Event Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 08/16/2022 11:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding August 16, 2022. Case management conference held by videoconference. Attorney Michael E. Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiff, and Attorney Philip W. Gasbarro appeared for the defendants. The plaintiff has filed this action seeking declaratory judgment that a 1971 consent decree creating certain rights in an abutting way, now owned by the defendants, remains valid and enforceable, or, in the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a count for prescriptive easement over the disputed parcel. The court adopted the parties' proposed discovery schedule consistent with the Land Court's Fast Track designation, which calls for the completion of all discovery by February 17, 2023. The court scheduled a status conference to be held via videoconference at 9:30 AM on February 24, 2023, at which time the court will set a briefing schedule if the parties intend to file dispositive motions. (Smith, J.).
  22. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 02/24/2023 Time: 09:30 AM
  23. Summons returned to Court with service on Osmant K. Pyle, III, Phyllis S. Pyle filed. Left at last and usual place of abode on July 5, 2022.
  24. Plaintiff's Motion for Short Order of Notice, filed and Allowed. Hearing to be held October 28, 2022 at 2:30pm by videoconference.
  25. Plaintiff's Motion for ExParte Temporary Restraining Order or alternatively for Preliminary Injunction and Costs,filed.
  26. Affidavit of Renee Dupont-Kujawski,filed.
  27. Summons and Hearing Notice issued on Application for Preliminary Injunction. Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Date: 10/28/2022 Time: 02:30 PM Notice issued to the Plaintiff.
  28. Defendants' Emergency Motion to Continue the Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed (by email).
  29. Affidavit of Phyllis Pyle in Support of Defendants' Emergency Motion to Continue the Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed (by email).
  30. Appearance of John J Egan, Esq., Lauren F Olanoff, Esq. for Osmant K. Pyle, III, Phyllis S. Pyle, filed
  31. Event Resulted: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction scheduled on: 10/28/2022 02:30 PM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding October 28, 2022. Hearing on preliminary injunction held via videoconference. Attorney Michael Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Philip Gasbarro appeared for the defendants. The court scheduled this hearing on plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order or alternatively for preliminary injunction pursuant to G. L. c. 93, 42A, but due to defendants' change of counsel, the court treated the hearing as a status conference. The court discussed with the parties whether a view of the property would be beneficial in ruling on the motion. Based on the representations of counsel, the court declined to issue a temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing on the preliminary injunction for November 10, 2022 at 11:00am. (Smith, J.).
  32. Withdrawal of Philip W Gasbarro, Esq. for Osmant K. Pyle, III, Phyllis S. Pyle, filed
  33. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Hearing on Application for Preliminary Injunction Date: 11/10/2022 Time: 11:00 AM
  34. Plaintiff's Assented to Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff's Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively for Preliminary Injunction, and Costs, Without Prejudice, filed (by email).
  35. Event Resulted: Hearing on Application for Preliminary Injunction scheduled on: 11/10/2022 11:00 AM Has been: Canceled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  36. Plaintiff's November 9, 2022 Motion to Withdraw is ALLOWED (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  37. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Ex Parte TRO, filed.
  38. Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for TRO, filed.
  39. Affidavit of Phyllis Pyle, filed.
  40. Notice of Change of Address of Attys. Adam Ponte and Michael Brangwynne, filed.
  41. Plaintiff's Motion for Short Order of Notice, filed and ALLOWED (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  42. Plaintiff Renee Dupont-Kujawski and Interested Party/ Proposed Plaintiff Ken M. Cournoyer, Trustee of the 7 Ernest Realty Trust's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Sanctions, filed.
  43. Motion to Amend Complaint, filed
  44. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Hearing on Application for Preliminary Injunction Date: 12/28/2022 Time: 10:00 AM
  45. Summons and Hearing Notice issued on Application for Preliminary Injunction. Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Date: 12/28/2022 Time: 10:00 AM
  46. Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed.
  47. Affidavit of Phyllis Pyle, filed.
  48. Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed.
  49. Event Resulted: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction scheduled on: 12/28/2022 10:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding December 28, 2022. Hearing on plaintiff's motion to amend complaint and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction held via videoconference. Attorney Michael Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiffs. Attorneys John Egan and Lauren Olanoff appeared for the defendants. The court asked if there was any opposition to plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to allow Ken M. Cournoyer, Trustee of the 7 Ernest Realty Trust, as plaintiff. Defendants indicated no opposition, and the motion to amend the complaint is hereby ALLOWED. The parties then turned to the motion for preliminary injunction. Attorney Brangwynne argued that the Pyles have removed and stored sections of a dock along the southern half of the unpaved portion of Bates Grove Road in a manner that impedes the plaintiffs' ability to use both the northern and southern half of Bates Grove Road for access to their property. The plaintiffs are asking the court for an order that would require the Pyles to remove the dock sections from the southern half of the unpaved way, preclude them from taking any other action that would obstruct either the northern or southern parcel during the pendency of this action, and preclude them from contacting the Town of Webster for the purpose of limiting or preventing the Town's snow removal services on the entirety of Bates Grove Road, including the unpaved section which is the focus of this action. Attorney Egan argued that the balance of equities supports the denial of a preliminary injunction because the parties disagree on the rights asserted by the plaintiffs in the disputed parcels, and both the plaintiffs have sufficient frontage to access their respective properties without a preliminary injunction. Furthermore, Attorney Egan argued that the plaintiffs have not submitted sufficient evidence or affidavits to support the relief requested in their motion for a preliminary injunction. The court indicated that it was inclined to deny the plaintiffs' motion based on the record developed to date. Following argument, Attorney Brangwynne requested an opportunity to review and, if appropriate, file a reply memorandum to the Pyles' written opposition to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, as neither Attorney Brangwynne nor the court had received a copy of the opposition before the hearing. The court granted the request and allowed the plaintiffs until Wednesday, January 4, 2023 to file a response to the opposition if they choose. (Smith, J.).
  50. Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Sanctions, filed (by email).
  51. Affidavit of Ken M. Cournoyer, filed (by email).
  52. Decision and Order on Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction, issued. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Adam Ponte, Michael Brangwynne, John Egan, and Lauren Olanoff) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  53. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Counterclaim, filed (by email).
  54. Event Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 02/24/2023 09:30 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding February 24, 2023. Status conference held via videoconference. Attorney Michael Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Lauren Olanoff appeared for the defendants. The court and the parties discussed the status of discovery, which was scheduled to be completed by February 17, 2023. The parties indicated that they have not completed discovery. Attorney Olanoff also indicated that the defendants tendered the defense of this case to its title insurer which was accepted. An attorney for the title insurance company is expected to file an appearance in this case. That attorney may have additional discovery requests as well. Following colloquy, the court granted a sixty-day extension for the completion of discovery. All discovery is to be completed by no later than April 21, 2023. No further extensions of discovery will be allowed. The court scheduled a status conference for April 26, 2023 at 11am, at which time the parties should be prepared to discuss dates for trial, expected length of trial, and proposed dates for a view of the property. (Smith, J.).
  55. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 04/26/2023 Time: 11:00 AM
  56. Appearance of Danielle Andrews Long, Esq. for Osmant K. Pyle, III, Phyllis S. Pyle, filed
  57. Event Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 04/26/2023 11:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding April 26, 2023. Status conference held via videoconference. Attorney Michael Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiffs. Attorneys Lauren Olanoff and Danielle Long appeared for the defendants. The purpose of this status conference was to discuss mediation or, alternatively, schedule a date for trial. The parties reported that they have attempted mediation, but all efforts were unsuccessful. The parties postponed certain discovery events while pursuing mediation, and discovery is expected to be completed in the coming weeks. The parties requested to set a date for trial pending the end of discovery. Following colloquy, the court scheduled a two-day trial to begin on September 11, 2023. The trial will be held in person, location to be determined based on availability of a courtroom in Worcester County. The court scheduled a pre-trial conference to be held on August 9, 2023 at 3pm. The parties are to submit a joint pre-trial memorandum identifying witnesses, agreed facts, and agreed exhibits, by August 4, 2023. Any motions in limine are to be served on opposing counsel by August 4, 2023. Lastly, the court requested that the parties consider conducting this trial pursuant to Land Court Rule 14. The parties remarked that legal issues in this case make it unlikely that they would want to conduct the trial under Rule 14, however there may be a way to streamline trial and dispose of the factual issues more efficiently. The parties are to discuss any ideas which would significantly narrow the issues at trial and request a status conference to discuss these ideas if necessary. Otherwise, the court will hold further discussion about Rule 14 at the pre-trial conference. (Smith, J.).
  58. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Pre-Trial Conference Date: 08/09/2023 Time: 03:00 PM
  59. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Trial Date: 09/11/2023 Time: 09:30 AM
  60. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Ongoing Trial Date: 09/12/2023 Time: 09:30 AM
  61. Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed.
  62. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Hearing Date: 06/06/2023 Time: 09:30 AM (via videoconference)
  63. Plaintiffs' Joint Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Costs, filed.
  64. Affidavid of Attorney Michael E. Brangwynne, Esq, filed.
  65. Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs'' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed.
  66. Event Resulted: Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Costs scheduled on: 06/06/2023 09:30 AM Has been: Held via video. Attorney Michael E. Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiffs. Attorneys Lauren F. Olanoff and Danielle Andrews Long appeared for the defendants. The plaintiffs have objected to producing copies of text messages between them that occurred after the Cournoyer plaintiffs retained Attorney Brangwynne's firm to represent them in this case. The plaintiffs claim that the communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the common interest doctrine. The communications are identified in a "Privilege Log" prepared by Attorney Brangwynne and reflect the number and date of the text messages over which he has asserted the privilege. Attorney Brangwynne argued that communications between parties with a common interest, who are represented by the same lawyer in the same case, are privileged under the common interest doctrine if the substance of the communications concerns the litigation even if the lawyer is not a party to the communication. Attorney Olanoff argued that, under Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609 (2007), the attorney-client privilege is the basis for the scope of the common interest doctrine and, therefore, the doctrine only applies to communications that include the client and his or her attorney. Attorney Olanoff argued that the common interest doctrine does not extend to communications between two plaintiffs represented by the same lawyer even if the substance of the communications are in furtherance of the litigation and disclose information that would be protected by the attorney-client privilege if the lawyer is a party to the communication. The court DENIED the defendants' motion as it pertains to the documents identified in the "Privilege Log." The plaintiffs' communications identified in the "Privilege Log" are protected by the common interest doctrine. In denying the defendants' motion, the court quoted a passage from the decision issued by the Honorable Kenneth W. Salinger in the Business Litigation Session case entitled Am.'s Test Kitchen, Inc. v. Kimball, as follows: The [moving parties'] assertion that the common interest doctrine does not apply unless different parties' legal interests are "identical" is without merit. The SJC has rejected that argument, holding that the interests of the different clients need not be "identical" or "entirely congruent" for this doctrine to apply. It explained that since different clients rarely will have identical interests, imposing such a requirement would stifle the free flow of communication that the attorney-client privilege is intended to promote. Two parties should be deemed to share a common legal interest for purposes of applying this privilege where their legal concerts or positions are sufficiently well aligned that they may reasonably attempt to promote that interest by sharing a privileged communication. . . . Where two clients are represented by the same lawyer, they may speak in confidence among themselves regarding what advice to seek from their lawyer or regarding what to do based on their lawyer's legal advice. Since a single client may share privileged attorney-client communications with a necessary agent without thereby waiving the privilege, it follows that two clients that have a common legal interest and have retained the same lawyer to represent them may engage in similar communications without waiving the privilege. See Am.'s Test Kitchen, Inc. v. Kimball, No, No. 1684CV03325BLS2, 2018 WL 2049490, at *4-6. Judge Salinger's reasoning is consistent with the reasoning of the SJC in Hanover. The plaintiffs shall respond, however, to an interrogatory or deposition question that seeks to discover whether plaintiff Renee Dupont-Kujawski is paying the legal bills of the Cournoyer plaintiffs in connection with the prosecution of their claims against the defendants in this case. Email notice to: Attorney Michael E. Brangwynne; Attorney Lauren F. Olanoff; and Attorney Danielle A. Long. Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  67. Notice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Michael E Brangwynne, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Adam Chin Ponte, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John J Egan, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Danielle Andrews Long, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Lauren F Olanoff, Esq. [email protected]
  68. Defendants' Motion for Permission to Serve Interrogatories and Supplemental Answers to Expert Interrogatories on Plaintiffs, filed.
  69. Affidavit of Lauren F. Olanoff in Support of Defendants' Motion for Permission to Serve Interrogatories and Supplemental Answers to Expert Interrogatories on Plaintiffs, filed.
  70. Notice of Motion (unsigned Certificate of Service), filed.
  71. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Defendants' Motion for Permission to Serve Interrogatories and Supplemental Answers to Expert Interrogatories on Plaintiffs Date: 06/27/2023 Time: 11:00 AM
  72. Event Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 06/27/2023 11:00 AM Has been: Rescheduled For the following reason: Request of Plaintiff(s) Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  73. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Motion Date: 06/27/2023 Time: 09:00 AM
  74. Notice of Motion (with Signed Certificate of Service), filed.
  75. Plaintiffs' Joint Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Permission to Serve Interrogatories and Supplement Answers to Expert Interrogatories on Plaintiffs, filed.
  76. Affidavit of Attorney Michael E. Brangwynne, Esq, filed.
  77. Event Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 06/27/2023 09:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding June 27, 2023. Motion hearing held via videoconference. Attorney Michael Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiffs. Attorney Lauren Olanoff appeared for the defendants. Before the court was the defendants' motion for permission to serve interrogatories and a request for production of documents on plaintiffs after the close of discovery. The plaintiffs opposed the motion arguing that they should not be compelled to respond to the interrogatories because discovery has closed and the defendants will not suffer significant prejudice because the plaintiffs have provided or will provide deposition testimony. The court denied the defendants' motion to serve written discovery after the discovery deadline. During the hearing, the defendants disclosed that they intend to disclose an expert witness who is expected to testify at trial. In response, the plaintiffs indicated that they may call an expert witness at trial, depending upon the substance of the defendants' expert disclosure. Following argument, the court ordered that the defendants must make a comprehensive disclosure of the identity of their expert and the facts known and opinions held by that expert in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) by no later than July 31, 2023. If the plaintiffs intend to call their own expert at trial, they must make the same disclosure to the defendants within 30 days following receipt of the defendants' expert disclosure. Although the court denied the defendants' discovery motion, defendants' counsel may ask questions related to the subject matter of the interrogatories at Plaintiff Ken Cournoyer's deposition, including a question about who is financing the plaintiffs' litigation. (Smith, J.).
  78. Notice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Michael E Brangwynne, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Adam Chin Ponte, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John J Egan, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Danielle Andrews Long, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Lauren F Olanoff, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 06/28/2023 14:54:16
  79. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Ongoing Trial Date: 09/13/2023 Time: 09:30 AM
  80. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Ongoing Trial Date: 09/14/2023 Time: 09:30 AM
  81. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Ongoing Trial Date: 09/15/2023 Time: 09:30 AM
  82. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Title Insurance at Trial, filed.
  83. Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum, filed.
  84. Event Resulted: Pre-Trial Conference scheduled on: 08/09/2023 03:00 PM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding August 9, 2023. Pre-trial conference held via videoconference. Attorney Michael Brangwynne appeared for the plaintiff. Attorneys Lauren Olanoff and Danielle Long appeared for the defendants. The court began this pre-trial conference by asking the parties to define the primary legal issues for trial. Attorney Brangwynne stated that the Kujawski plaintiffs claim rights in the northern half of Bates Grove Road by virtue of a consent decree entered by the Worcester Superior Court in 1971 and rights in the southern half of Bates Grove Road by prescription. These rights allow for passage by foot or vehicle to access Webster Lake. The Cournoyer plaintiffs claim an express easement, 40 feet in width, over the length of Bates Grove Road to access Webster Lake. Attorney Olanoff stated that the defendants concede that the plaintiffs have some rights in portions of the road, but dispute that either plaintiff has a right to use the entirety of Bates Grove Road. Furthermore, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' use of the road has overburdened the easement. The Defendants have designated a title expert to testify concerning the relevant title instruments that may bear on the relative rights of the parties in Bates Grove Road. The Plaintiffs have not yet determined whether they will introduce testimony from a rebuttal expert witness but must do so by August 31st. Following discussion, the court requested that the parties file an amended pre-trial memorandum. The amendment should include a summary of the legal issues to be determined at trial, and each party's respective position on those issues, as well as a summary of each party's expert witness testimony. The amended pre-trial memorandum is due by no later than 1pm on September 1, 2023. The court then turned to the final housekeeping matters for trial. The court scheduled a view of the property to take place on September 6, 2023, at 1pm. The parties are to submit a copy of the agreed-upon exhibits to the court by no later than September 7, 2023. The court has scheduled five days for trial, which will commence at 9:30am on September 11, 2023, to be held in person at the Land Court in Boston, unless otherwise ordered by the court. The court also advised the parties to hire a court reporter for the trial. (Smith, J.).
  85. Notice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Michael E Brangwynne, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Adam Chin Ponte, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John J Egan, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Danielle Andrews Long, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Lauren F Olanoff, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Philip W Gasbarro, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 08/10/2023 10:19:05
  86. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: View Date: 09/06/2023 Time: 01:00 PM
  87. September 1, 2023. Joint request to extend the filing deadline to September 5, 2023, for the pre-trial memorandum, given the prospect of a settlement agreement, received via email and ALLOWED. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Michael E Brangwynne, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Adam Chin Ponte, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John J Egan, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Danielle Andrews Long, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Lauren F Olanoff, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John J Egan, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Danielle Andrews Long, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Lauren F Olanoff, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/01/2023 16:06:03
  88. Event Resulted: View scheduled on: 09/06/2023 01:00 PM Has been: Canceled For the following reason: Case Reported Settled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  89. Event Resulted: Trial scheduled on: 09/11/2023 09:30 AM Has been: Canceled For the following reason: Case Reported Settled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding Parties notified via email.
  90. Event Resulted: Ongoing Trial scheduled on: 09/12/2023 09:30 AM Has been: Canceled For the following reason: Case Reported Settled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  91. Event Resulted: Ongoing Trial scheduled on: 09/13/2023 09:30 AM Has been: Canceled For the following reason: Case Reported Settled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  92. Event Resulted: Ongoing Trial scheduled on: 09/14/2023 09:30 AM Has been: Canceled For the following reason: Case Reported Settled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  93. Event Resulted: Ongoing Trial scheduled on: 09/15/2023 09:30 AM Has been: Canceled For the following reason: Case Reported Settled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  94. Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, filed.

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