In Peterson v. Crystal Clear Sewer and Drain, the Appeals Court reviewed arguments about standing, substitution, and whether defendants preserved a right to compel arbitration.

Appellant counsel Seth Salinger argued a written assignment from the decedent plaintiff made Mary Peterson the real party in interest under Rule 17, and that the trial court erred by refusing substitution. Salinger also urged the court to view defendants' extended litigation conduct and a failure to timely move to compel arbitration as waiver, noting discovery participation, a jury demand, and a multi‑year bankruptcy delay.

Appellee counsel Joshua M. Daniels responded that substitution under Mass. R. Civ. P. 25(c) is discretionary and that the notice of appeal’s body identified the plaintiff as 'the plaintiff in the above captioned action'—the decedent—and thus the notice may be defective. Daniels also argued the defendants' record shows limited activity (an answer and a suggestion of bankruptcy), that much of the delay was attributable to the bankruptcy stay, and that the record did not resemble the active judicial forum‑shopping cases that courts deem waiver.

The panel asked detailed questions about when the arbitration defense was raised, whether an affirmative defense and cross motion could preserve the right, and how Conway/Home Gas waiver factors should be applied to the docket timeline. Counsel acknowledged factual complexity and indicated they may supplement the record if the court requested further citation.

After extended argument the court recessed and submitted the matter.