Opinion
10-P-1146
08-04-2011
THOMAS GARY STELLA v. NORTH READING TRANSPORTATION & another.[FN1]
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
This appeal concerns a retaliatory discharge claim brought by Stella, a former employee of the defendant, North Reading Transportation. North Reading Transportation's summary judgment motion was allowed.
We pass the question whether the plaintiff's appeal is properly before us.
Upon consideration of the briefs and record appendix we have little difficulty concluding, on our de novo review, that the judgment may be affirmed based substantially on the reasoning and
See Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 426 Mass. 122, 123 n.1 (1997); Clean Harbors, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 64 Mass. App. Ct. 347, 357 n.9 (2005).
authorities set out in the Superior Court judge's memorandum.
The defendant's reliance on dicta in Piderit v. Siegal & Sons Investments, Ltd., 55 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 4-5 (2002), not only misses the mark, but, as the trial judge noted, that case is factually inapposite to the instant circumstances. Moreover, the decision in Piderit, in effect, undercuts the plaintiff's claim.
See id. at 5-6.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Graham, Brown & Sikora, JJ.),