A. David Mazzone

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts district Retired 1993 · served 1978–1993 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 20 signed orders read

Judge Mazzone no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Mazzone decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Mazzone required securities-fraud plaintiffs to identify concrete misrepresentations rather than rely on losses and generalized claims of unsuitable advice.

“This is not a matter requiring discovery, as the information required should be in the plaintiff’s hands.”

Mazzone treated the official bankruptcy docket as information on which parties may reasonably rely when no contrary notice is provided.

“I find that, in the absence of superseding, reliable information, parties to a bankruptcy have a legal right to rely on the docket as the official record of the case.”

Procedural preferences

Mazzone refused delay in institutional litigation when the responsible government offered no feasible alternative or concrete progress.

“With this record, further delay is neither warranted nor deserved.”

Mazzone rejected consolidation that would add parties and issues without producing a meaningful efficiency gain.

“To add two more parties and another complex set of issues would simply clutter an ongoing proceeding that already has accumulated a voluminous record over a period of many years.”

Cautions

Mazzone would not infer grand-jury error merely because witnesses gave inconsistent or unclear accounts where the essential presentation was fairly supported.

“But, in presenting the case to the grand jury, the government’s attorney was not obligated to sift through the testimony and cull out evidence arguably favorable to the accused.”

Mazzone required prejudice before granting relief for government interference with defense investigation.

“Prejudice is a necessary factor in a challenge to a conviction on the ground of governmental interference with the defense investigation.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Broderick v. City of Boston
Motions to dismiss (City of Boston) Denied

“In accordance with the foregoing, the defendant City’s motion to dismiss is denied.”

Alton v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“In accordance with the foregoing, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is to be dismissed.”

Moore v. Healy
Motion for judgment on pleadings (defendants) Granted in part

“With regard to Count I of the complaint, for contract damages, judgment for the defendants is granted. Count II, in quantum meruit, is dismissed as to the Corozza defendants. The action in quantum meruit may be maintained against Ms. Healy, solely in her capacity as executor of the estate of Mrs. Houle.”

Town of Brookline v. Operation Rescue
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“The motion for summary judgment on counts one and three is therefore GRANTED. The state-law claims, counts two, four and five are DISMISSED.”

Clark v. United States Postal Service
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“In accordance with the above, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action and the complaint must be dismissed.”

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Voller (In Re Voller)
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant GMAC) Granted

“For these reasons, the Bankruptcy Court’s order of December 30, 1992, denying the appellant’s motion for an extension to file objections to the debtor's discharge, is reversed. I remand the case to the Bankruptcy Court for further action consistent with this opinion.”

Wasserman v. City of Cambridge
Bankruptcy appeal (debtors-appellants) Granted

“In accordance with the foregoing, the Order of the Bankruptcy Court is reversed.”

United States v. Khalaf
Petition for writ of coram nobis (defendant-petitioner) Granted

“For the reasons stated, there was a fundamental error underlying Petitioner’s drug conviction, and therefore, the petition must be GRANTED.”

Kines v. Butterworth
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“The respondent’s motion to dismiss the petitions is accordingly granted.”

Zarrilli v. Snell
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, we exercise our discretion under the Rules and order that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice against def endant Starr as well as the state defendants.”

MacDonald v. Gunther
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.”

United States v. Metropolitan District Commission
Motion to intervene (City of Boston and Boston Redevelopment Authority) Denied

“In accordance with the above, the motion to intervene is denied”

Motion to modify order (City of Boston and Boston Redevelopment Authority) Denied

“the motion to clarify and/or modify my order of February 25, 1991 is denied.”

Motion to expand sewer ban (United States) Granted

“The motion of the United States to expand the ban to industrial sources is allowed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 2976 days (N = 19).

The nineteen located historical dockets were all terminated and spanned civil-rights, contract, statutory, criminal, antitrust, labor, tort, securities, and product-liability matters. This is a partial historical slice rather than a complete caseload.

A historical record

Judge Mazzone no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.