The Commission's decision

Town of Winthrop · from StateReference · 3 pages · 226 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
SUFFOLK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
*be(\V CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1806-E
e>S\2-2o(v^)
FERRUCCIO ROMEO y.y;yyy
VS. . ' ■ - 
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and TOWN OF WINTHROP 
:■■■ ' ." ' ■ ' . 
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT ^
ON DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS G. L. c 30A 
- V,; AFFEAL FOR. FAILURE TO'PROSECUTE y.-. VAG; Av :■ . .
On June 6, 2019, the pro se plaintiff, Ferruccio Romeo (“plaintiff’), who is an attorney,
filed a complaint for judicial review pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7) and G; L/c, 3 L § 44
against the defendants, the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) and the Town of
Winthrop (“Town”) (collectively, “defendants”). The plaintiff is seeking a review of the
Commission’s decision to dismiss his appeal concerning his promotional appointments with the
Town’s police department, the Commission having found that the relief he sought already had
been granted.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff has failed
to prosecute his Chapter 30A appeal in a timely fashion. The plaintiff opposes the motion. After
hearing, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion is ALLOWED.
Winthrop filed and served its answer to the complaint on August 21, 2019; and the
Commission filed and served its answer on September 23. 2019. and the Administrative Record
on November 1, 2019. Pursuant to Superior Court Standing Order 1-96, which governs actions
for judicial review of administrative proceedings, a claim for judicial review shall be resolved 
through a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c), which motion
must be served within thirty (30) days of the service of the Administrative Record. Sup. Ct.
Standing Order 1-96. Now over 127 days after the filing of the Administrative Record, the
plaintiff has yet to file his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In his thirteen-paged opposition, the plaintiff goes on at length about the history of his
dispute with the Town and cites his pending “Motion for the Application of Collateral Estoppel'’
in another action of his against the Town, Romeo v. TownofWinthrop, et al, Suffolk Sup. Ct.
Civil Action No. 15 84C¥02140. However, the resolution of that motion in the other case has no
bearing on the plaintiffs obligation to comply with the clear requirements of Standing Order
1-96. Moreover, the plaintiff has not proffered any excuse for his failure to file timely his motion
for judgment on the pleading, nor even filed a motion requesting an extension of time for filing
such a motion.
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
For all the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
defendants’ motion to dismiss be ALLOWED and that the complaint be DISMISSED.
Linda E. Giles,
Justice of the Superior Court
Dated: March 6, 2020 
2 
1984CV01806 
Robert L Quinan, Jr., Esq.
Comm of MA-Office of the Atty General
Government Bureau
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108-1698