Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Reconsideration for Eldorado Canyon Properties
Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the denial of reconsideration for Eldorado Canyon Properties' motion to reinstate an earlier appeal. The appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute, and subsequent attempts to reinstate it were also denied.
What changed
The Massachusetts Appeals Court has affirmed a single justice's order denying reconsideration of a motion to reinstate an appeal. The original appeal, docketed in July 2024, was administratively dismissed for failure to prosecute. Although the appeal was initially reinstated, a subsequent failure to timely file the brief and record appendix led to a second dismissal process. Eldorado Canyon Properties' motion for an enlargement of time was allowed, setting a new deadline of March 31, 2025, but the brief was not filed.
This decision means that Eldorado Canyon Properties' appeal remains dismissed. The court's ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and deadlines in appellate practice. Parties involved in litigation should ensure they meet all filing requirements to avoid dismissal, and understand that reconsideration of such dismissals is not guaranteed.
What to do next
- Review internal procedures for tracking appellate deadlines.
- Ensure timely filing of briefs and record appendices in all appeals.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
CITY OF GARDNER v. LAWRENCE PETRICCA, SR., Trustee, & Another.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 25-P-0636
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Combined Opinion
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-636
CITY OF GARDNER
vs.
LAWRENCE PETRICCA, SR., trustee, 1 & another. 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Eldorado Canyon Properties, LLC (Eldorado), which describes
itself as an "interested party/appellant," appeals pursuant to
Rule 15.0 (b) (2) (A) of the Rules of the Appeals Court, as
appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1010 (2020), from the order of a
single justice that denied its motion for reconsideration of an
administrative order dismissing an earlier appeal in this court.
We affirm.
The earlier appeal, Appeals Court docket no. 24-P-869, was
docketed in July 2024. On September 24, 2024, the clerk entered
a notice preceding dismissal. On October 17, 2024, the appeal
1 Of the L & L Realty Trust.
2 Eldorado Canyon Properties, LLC, interested party.
was administratively dismissed for failure to prosecute under
Rule 19.0 of the Rules of the Appeals Court, as appearing in 97
Mass. App. Ct. 1012 (2020) (M.A.C. Rule 19.0). On October 21,
Eldorado moved to reinstate the appeal, and that motion was
allowed. After Eldorado failed to timely file its brief and
record appendix, a second administrative dismissal process
commenced. Eldorado then sought an enlargement of time to file
its brief and appendix, which was allowed to March 31, 2025.
Eldorado did not file its brief or appendix by that deadline,
however, and on April 9, 2025, the single justice directed the
clerk to issue a notice of dismissal of the appeal pursuant to
M.A.C. Rule 19.0 (a) (3), which the clerk did the same day. On
April 23, Eldorado moved for reconsideration of that
administrative order of dismissal. On April 30, the single
justice denied the motion for reconsideration because Eldorado
had not served and filed a motion to reinstate the appeal and
for leave to file a late brief and appendix, or the brief and
appendix themselves. See M.A.C. Rule 19 (c). The clerk issued
a notice of dismissal of the appeal to the trial court that same
day. Eldorado now appeals from the single justice's order dated
April 30, 2025, denying its motion for reconsideration.
"At the outset, it is important to keep in mind that we
review the action of the single justice for errors of law and,
if none appear, for abuse of discretion." Troy Indus., Inc. v.
2
Samson Mfg. Corp., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 575, 581 (2010). "[A]
judge's discretionary decision constitutes an abuse of
discretion where we conclude the judge made a clear error of
judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the decision, such
that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable
alternatives" (quotation and citation omitted). L.L. v.
Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).
Eldorado maintains that the single justice violated Mass.
R. A. P. 15 (c), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1627 (2019), which
provides that a single justice "may not dismiss or otherwise
determine an appeal." That limitation, however, does not
preclude the single justice from enforcing the procedural rules
that govern the appellate process. See DeLucia v. Kfoury, 93
Mass. App. Ct. 166, 168-169 (2018). The order of the single
justice challenged by Eldorado did not dismiss or otherwise
determine an appeal, but rather denied Eldorado's motion to
reconsider an earlier administrative order dismissing its appeal
for lack of prosecution. The single justice acted within her
authority in denying that motion because Eldorado failed to
comply with the requirements for reinstating an appeal under
M.A.C. Rule 19.0 (c). That rule provides that, prior to the
expiration of fourteen days from the clerk's entry of notice of
dismissal of the appeal, the appellant must serve and file
"(1) a motion to reinstate the appeal and for leave to file a
3
late brief or appendix or status report and (2) the brief or
appendix or status report (whichever documents are overdue)."
M.A.C. Rule 19.0 (c). Eldorado did not serve and file any of
those documents. Indeed, as the single justice noted in an
earlier order, Eldorado did not file its brief or record
appendix despite having received "more than 150 days of
enlargements." Nor did Eldorado demonstrate that its delay was
caused by excusable neglect, a showing that must be made before
a single justice may grant the "extraordinary request" of a
motion to reinstate an appeal. See Howard v. Boston Water &
Sewer Comm'n, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 119, 122-123 (2019).
Accordingly, the single justice did not err or abuse her
discretion in denying Eldorado's motion for reconsideration.
Because this appeal concerns only the single justice's order
denying its motion for reconsideration in the earlier appeal, we
4
do not address Eldorado's arguments concerning the underlying
Land Court proceeding.
Order of single justice
denying motion for
reconsideration affirmed.
By the Court (Henry, Shin &
Toone, JJ. 3),
Clerk
Entered: March 25, 2026.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
5
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Massachusetts Appeals Court publishes new changes.