Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears Bruno v. Alliance on jurisdictional timing, 93A damages and post-judgment interest
Summary
Counsel for Alliance and for Michael Bruno argued competing theories: Alliance urged the panel to measure appellate timing from a later 'final' judgment, while Bruno's side defended remand results awarding additional damages under G.L. c. 93A and sought post-judgment interest treatment; the court took the case under advisement.
At oral argument in Michael Bruno v. Alliance Rental Group LLC, Alliance counsel David Travers urged the panel to adopt a rules-based approach to finality and appellate timing, telling the court that "the final judgment occurred on 02/13/2025" when a further judgment addressed attorney's fees and remaining disputes. Travers argued that intermediate entries did not constitute separate final judgments and cited rule text (Rule 54(a), appellate rules on tolling by post-judgment motions) and analogous authority (Alberti v. Alberti, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 235) to support his view that…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
