Legal Opinion

DeAndrade v. Schottenstein Bernstein Capital Group, Inc.

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided January 23, 2006PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Williams, EJ.

Claiming damage resulting from an altercation with store employees, the plaintiff, Hilario DeAndrade (“DeAndrade”), filed suit against the liquidating agent for the store, Schottenstein Bernstein Capital Group, Inc.(“Schottenstein”). *6Schottenstein filed an answer to the amended complaint against it, following that answer with a motion to dismiss for untimely service under Mass. R Civ. E, Rule 4©. That motion was allowed. Because Schottenstein had filed an answer that did not expressly state that service was late under Rule 4®, DeAndrade claims Schotten-stein had waived that…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. John A. McCurdy Jr., M.D. John A. McCurdy Jr., M.D., Facs, Inc. v. American Board of Plastic SurgeryCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  2. Hull v. Attleboro Savings BankMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
  3. Resolution Trust Corp. v. StarkeyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
  4. Shuman v. Stanley WorksMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1991
  5. Commissioner of Revenue v. CarriganMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Asfour v. Brinda Realty TrustMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2009
  2. Huggins v. SantosMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2009
  3. Killoran v. BoylesMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API