A plaintiff who filed a lawsuit against Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) allegedly failed to give proper notice to institute. Accordingly, a superior court judge dismissed the case and the Appeals Court affirmed that decision.
The timeline of events, according to court documents, is as follows:
- December 2023 the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against WPI in superior court.
- March 2024 the plaintiff’s attorney served a copy of the complaint on WPI but did not make proof of service in writing to the court as required by Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(f).
- March 25, 2024 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint but never served it on WPI.
- July 10, 2024–more than ninety days after the amended complaint was filed–WPI’s lawyer filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide proper notice.
- The judge allowed the motion and entered a default judgment in favor of WPI.
- The plaintiff’s attorney asked the court to remove the default judgment, claiming that he had medical issues which left him “unable to attend to [his] professional responsibilities.”
- WPI’s lawyer files an affidavit showing that the plaintiff’s lawyer was, in fact, actively practicing law during the period in question.
- The judge refused to remove the default judge.
- The plaintiff appealed.
Today the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion upholding the lower court’s decision.
According to the Appeals Court,
In denying the motion, the judge found that the plaintiff’s counsel “[did] not adequately explain why he was unable to ensure that proof of service of process [for the original complaint] was filed with the court during the ninety-day period . . . which spanned mid-December 2023 to mid-March 2024.”2 The judge further found that the plaintiff’s counsel did not serve the amended complaint on the defendants during the ninety days that followed March 25, 2024, and did not file with the court proof of service of the amended complaint. Based on the facts he found, the judge concluded that the plaintiff did not meet the “considerable burden” to show excusable neglect. Gath, 440 Mass. at 497. We discern no error or abuse of discretion in the judge’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion seeking relief from the judgment.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.