Stonkus v. City of Brockton School Department

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that counsel’s “busyness” does not constitute “excusable neglect”
• stating that “[b]ecause [the nonmoving party] did not controvert the statement of undisputed material facts that the defendants filed with their summary judgment motion, [the court] deem[ed] those facts admitted”
• noting that the claims at issue were over six years old
• referring to “confusion over filing dates and busyness” as a “type of counsel error [repeatedly held] to be inadequate to support a determination of excusable neglect” under Rule 60(b)
• providing that “material facts of record set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed for purposes of the motion to be admitted by the opposing parties unless controverted by the statement required to be served by opposing parties”
• providing that “material facts of record set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed for purposes of the motion to be admitted by the opposing parties unless controverted by the statement required to be served by opposing parties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).