Rule on Requests for Interdepartmental Judicial Assignments
This Rule governs the method for requesting interdepartmental judicial assignments. Pursuant to G.L. c. 211B, section 9, the Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court (hereafter, "CJAM") is authorized to assign a judge appointed to any Department of the Trial Court to sit in any other Department of the Trial Court for such period or periods of tune as will best promote the speedy dispatch of judicial business.
The assignments may authorize a judge to sit simultaneously as a judge of several Departments for the purpose of reducing delay and duplication in actions pending in the Trial Court.
As used herein, the term "party" shall mean the attorney of record for a party, if represented by counsel, or, if a party is not represented by counsel, the party acting pro se.
Such assignments shall be made to accomplish one or more of the following purposes:
* to promote speedy disposition of cases, reduce duplication of hearings and promote judicial economy when each pending action will require a hearing or trial;
* to afford complete and permanent relief which might not be obtained unless the actions are consolidated for hearing and heard by one judge;
* to effectuate a proposed settlement of one case through the filing of a subsequent action in another court department; or
* where there is some other reason, consistent with the speedy and efficient dispatch of judicial bus!ness, why the cases should be assigned to and heard by one judge.
A party making a request pursuant to this Rule shall at the same tune send a copy of such request to all parties in the related cases, and to any judge who has been specially assigned to any of the cases, and, as to any case to which no judge has been specially assigned, to the first justice of the court in which that case is pending. Any party opposing the request will have seven days from receipt of the request to submit to the CJAM and Chief Justices of the respective Departments a letter in opposition with a statement of the reasons therefor.
Except for good cause shown and described in the request, a request for an interdepartmental judicial assignment will not be considered if made within 60 days prior to an established trial date. Cases shall not be removed from a trial list solely because a request for an interdepartmental judicial assignment is pending.
* whether the actions involve the same parties (including children) and the same attorneys;
* whether, in child welfare cases in which all parties are not identical, the person who is not a party to one of the cases sought to be consolidated is a parent, foster parent, guardian, relative or caretaker who seeks custody, visitation, or related orders regarding the child;
* whether the actions involve common, or substantially the same or similar, questions of law and fact;
* whether the witnesses and the evidence to be presented in the separate actions will be the same or similar; and
* whether the requested forms of relief are similar or related.
Factors to be considered in determining whether allowance of the request would tend to promote the speedy dispatch of court business and to reduce delay and duplication include the following:
* whether the actions are in similar stages of readiness;
* whether either action has an established trial date;
* whether the request was made to take advantage of an existing trial date in one case for use in the other case(s);
8 whether allowance of the request might require that an established trial date for one of the cases be rescheduled to afford additional time for preparation or for trial of the other, unscheduled case(s); and
* whether, notwithstanding the provisions of this Rule, a party already has caused a case to be removed from a trial list by informing the court that a request for an interdepartmental judicial assignment was or will be made.
Additional factors to be considered may include the following:
* whether, if the request is allowed, there will be a continuing or long-term need for a judge of one court Department to exercise the powers normally vested within another court Department, or whether the assignment only will be needed for one hearing;
* especially in cases involving child welfare, whether, due to special assignment to, or continuing familiarity with, one of the cases, it would be appropriate for the same judge to hear the related matter(s) to promote case continuity or permanency planning;
* whether the request should have been made earlier in order to reduce resulting delay; and
* any other special considerations that are not apparent from the docket entries or other portions of the written request.