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.
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
Case Information
Filed
2023-11-07
Status
Closed
Type
Eqa Equitable Action Involving Any Right, Title Or Interest In Land, G.l. Chapter 185, 1 (k)
Docket
32 entries
Parties
Plaintiff
Leva, Dennis P.|Leva, Diane R.
Defendant
Wu, Ray Z.|Lai, Mei Hao
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- Stipulation of Dismissal - Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii)
- Case assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
- Land Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 445415 Date: 11/07/2023
- Land Court surcharge Receipt: 445415 Date: 11/07/2023
- Land Court summons Receipt: 445415 Date: 11/07/2023
- Uniform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Short Order of Notice, filed.
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Waive Security Requirement, filed.
- Affidavit as to Military Service, filed.
- Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Memorandum of Law Incorporated), filed.
- Affidavit of Plaintiff, Diane R. Leva, in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction , filed.
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Short Order of Notice DENIED as the date of the hearing is beyond the scope of a Short Order Notice. Counsel notified via email. Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R.
- Summons and Hearing Notice issued on Application for Preliminary Injunction. Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R. Event: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Date: 11/29/2023 Time: 10:00 AM Counsel sent summons via email.
- Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server under MRCP Rule 4(c), filed and ALLOWED. Counsel notified via email. Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R.
- Supplemental Affidavit of Plaintiff, Diane R. Leva, in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed.
- Summons returned to Court with service on Ray Z. Wu filed. Served IN HAND with an adult person residing at abode Mei Hao Lai on November 20, 2023.
- Summons returned to Court with service on Mei Hao Lai filed. Served IN HAND on November 20, 2023.
- Appearance of Mark B Johnson, Esq., John M Donnelly, Esq. for Ray Z. Wu, Mei Hao Lai, filed
- Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, filed.
- Affidavit of Defendant Mei Lai, filed.
- Event Resulted: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction scheduled on: 11/29/2023 10:00 AM Has been: Hearing held on motion for preliminary injunction via videoconference. Attorney Stephen Nelson appeared on behalf of plaintiffs Dennis Leva and Diane Leva, who were present, and Attorneys John Donnelly, John Willis, and Sharon Petrillo appeared on behalf of defendants Ray Wu and Mei Hao Lai, who were present. Court is in receipt of: (1) the Complaint; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Memorandum of Law Incorporated); (3) Affidavit of Plaintiff, Diane R. Leva, in support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction; (4) Supplemental Affidavit of Plaintiff, Diane R. Leva, in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction; (5) Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief; and (6) Affidavit of Defendant Mei Lai. By way of background, Attorney Nelson explained that the plaintiffs (who own property located at 17 Church Lane, Burlington) seek to enjoin defendants (who own adjacent property located at 1 Raymond Road) from entering onto a portion of defendants' own property, which area plaintiffs claim to own by adverse possession or, alternatively, as to which they claim an easement by prescription. Plaintiffs also ask the court to order defendants to remove security cameras and no-trespassing signs which allegedly infringe on the plaintiffs' privacy, as well as wooden surveyor's stakes. Attorney Nelson also made reference to an alleged agreement between the plaintiffs and the developer for the defendant's new house, which agreement allegedly included a modified boundary line between the two properties. During argument court viewed the following documents using Zoom's screenshare function: (1) two versions of the plan of land entitled "Disputed Area Plan" prepared by A.C. Nelson Cartography on December 27, 2022, one of which depicted a blue shaded disputed area (as allegedly agreed upon with the developer) and the other depicting in red the full extent of the area of the land claimed by plaintiffs; and (2) a Google Street View Image from October 2013 depicting the historical conditions of the disputed area, which included an large tree and overgrown shrub near the sidewalk at the boundary line. Following argument, the court DENIED the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction for the reasons stated on the record and as follows: A preliminary injunction may issue only if the moving party demonstrates (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, (b) that it faces a substantial risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued, and (c) that this risk of irreparable harm outweighs any risk of irreparable harm which granting the injunction would create for the defendant. Garcia v. Dep't. of Housing and Comty. Dev., 480 Mass. 736, 747 (2018); GTE Prods. Corp. v. Stewart, 414 Mass. 721, 722-724 (1993); Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 617 (1980). After hearing, court concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because it is unclear which specific areas are alleged to have been tended and planted by the plaintiffs as part of their garden and lawn, particularly in light of the large tree and overgrown shrub which were previously located within the disputed area, because the developer installed a retaining wall in the vicinity of the boundary at an unspecified time which has altered the topography (and is alleged to be encroaching on plaintiff's property), and because defendants have filed an affidavit refuting such use. In addition, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they will be irreparably harmed by the current conditions, particularly since the grass in the disputed area appears to be dead, such that any harm has already occurred and does not require immediate attention. With respect to the plaintiffs' concerns about the cameras, the court advised that it does not have jurisdiction over invasion of privacy claims or other tort claims which are mentioned in the motion, and further noted that such claims were not pled in the complaint so as to warrant action by the court. The court then explored with the parties the possibility of a negotiated resolution for both the immediate future and relative to a long term solution, so as to avoid the time, expense, and risk of litigation. After a brief recess using Zoom's break-out room function, counsel reported that the parties were willing to mediate and negotiate both a stand-still agreement and a permanent solution. Following colloquy and by December 8, 2023, counsel to agree upon and file a stipulation as to how the parties will use and maintain the disputed area during the pendency of this action. Further, court to issue a mediation screening order, with screening to be complete by December 29, 2023; and, by January 10, 2024, parties to file a joint status report as to outcome of the mediation screening, whether parties are willing to attend mediation, and if so, naming mediation provider, identity of neutral, and date of session. In addition, in order to ensure that the parties are in agreement about the location of the disputed area and structures, by January 28, 2024, Attorney Willis to file a survey depicting the boundary between the properties, as well as the disputed area and any fences, retaining wall, other structures, vegetation, paving, and monuments, along with a narrative statement of how defendants' survey differs from plaintiffs' survey by A.C. Nelson Cartography (or alternatively, advise the court that defendants agrees with the survey by A.C. Nelson Cartography). Hon. Diane R. Rubin, Presiding Counsel notified via email.
- Order Referring Case to Dispute Resolution Screening Session, issued. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Stephen Nelson, John Willis, John Donnelly, and Sharon Petrillo) Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R.
- Appearance of Sharon M Petrillo, Esq., John Fitzgerald Willis, Esq. for Ray Z. Wu, Mei Hao Lai, filed
- Answer and Counterclaim filed by Defendants Ray Z. Wu and Mei Hao Lai.
- Joint Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants, filed.
- Withdrawal of John M Donnelly, Esq., Mark B Johnson, Esq. for Ray Z. Wu, Mei Hao Lai, filed
- Counsel emailed the court a Joint Status update: "Counsel are pleased to report that this matter settled at REBA mediation on Friday. The settlement will require a new plan and possible zoning/planning board approval. We are asking that the Court waive the filing of a status report on Wednesday and perhaps put this matter on for a status in April." Counsel will be filing a further Joint Status Report by March 8, 2024.
- Counsel emailed the court an update: "On behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants, please advise the Court that that parties continue to be in the process of consummating the settlement of this matter, and satisfying conditions to the same pursuant to our written settlement agreement. As we advised the Court in our last email, below attached, the parties are still working together to this end. We expect that it may take another 90 days or so, and would request that the Court not issue any type of 30 day order, to afford the parties the time required to satisfy all conditions of the settlement agreement." Counsel will be filing a further Joint Status Report by June 10, 2024.
- Counsel emailed the court a status update: "At this juncture, the parties have obtained the necessary relief from the Town of Burlington Zoning Board of Appeals, and satisfied another unrelated condition of the settlement agreement executed by and between the parties. We are currently within the 20-day zoning appeal period pursuant to 40A, after which time, assuming no appeals are filed, the parties will seek to have the new plan endorsed by the Planning Board. We are hoping that the parties will be able to satisfy all conditions of the settlement agreement and resolve this matter once and for all, by late July." Counsel will file either a further Joint Status Report or a Stipulation of Dismissal by August 1, 2024.
- Atty. Petrillo emailed the court a Status Update: "Please accept this email as a status update on this matter for the Court. At this juncture, the parties have obtained zoning relief, and the appeal period has expired with no filings. We are now in the process of filing an ANR application for approval by the local planning board and we expect to have the necessary sign-offs within 60 days. As soon as we have those, we will be able to satisfy all conditions of the settlement agreement and resolve this matter once and for all. We would be happy to report back to the court again, but do intend to file a dismissal as soon as possible." Counsel will be filing either a further Joint Status Report or a Stipulation of Dismissal by November 1, 2024.
- Atty. Petrillo emailed the court a status: "At this juncture, the parties have obtained all zoning relief and ANR approval by the local Planning Board of a new plan. We expect to go to record next week with the plans, deeds and a setback agreement and we will be filing a stipulation of dismissal thereafter." Counsel will file a further Joint Status Report by January 6, 2025.
- Stipulation of Dismissal, filed.
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
