Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Massachusetts Department Of Transportation x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other | Massachusetts
Copy Mailed
Copy re 14 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, mailed to Patrick Di Santo Number9ine Patrick dI Santo 16008 W. 84th Terrace 66219-8189 Lenexa, KS 66219 on 7/6/2026. (SP)
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Courts order dismissing the case, Doc. No. 13 . Plaintiff asserts that he "can now allege with greater specificity" the nature of his disability, the accommodations he requested, and the manner in which the RMV denied him meaningful access to its services because of his disability. Those assertions, however, remain conclusory and are unsupported by any concrete factual allegations. Plaintiff does not submit a proposed second amended complaint, instead relying on the same exhibits attached to his original and first amended complaints. Although the motion provides marginally more detail regarding Plaintiff's alleged disability, it otherwise reiterates the same conclusory allegations previously presented. It still fails to allege with any specificity how, when, or to whom Plaintiff requested accommodations, or how the RMV's allegedly erroneous recordsand its continued maintenance of those recordsconstituted a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability. In short, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that reconsideration is warranted or that amendment would cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's prior order. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, Doc. No. 13 , is DENIED. (SP)
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Courts order dismissing the case, Doc. No. 13 . Plaintiff asserts that he "can now allege with greater specificity" the nature of his disability, the accommodations he requested, and the manner in which the RMV denied him meaningful access to its services because of his disability. Those assertions, however, remain conclusory and are unsupported by any concrete factual allegations. Plaintiff does not submit a proposed second amended complaint, instead relying on the same exhibits attached to his original and first amended complaints. Although the motion provides marginally more detail regarding Plaintiff's alleged disability, it otherwise reiterates the same conclusory allegations previously presented. It still fails to allege with any specificity how, when, or to whom Plaintiff requested accommodations, or how the RMV's allegedly erroneous recordsand its continued maintenance of those recordsconstituted a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability. In short, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that reconsideration is warranted or that amendment would cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's prior order. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, Doc. No. 13 , is DENIED. (SP)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.