Dear Mr. Garmel,

Here's the chronology of my case:

12-24-2008 Complaint filed against 2 defendants,
a) Nantucket Building Department
b) Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters
defendants have 90 days to Answer.
02-11-2009 Board of State Examiners serves its Answer
03-05-2009 Superior Court Justice Linda Giles issues Scheduling Order
a) setting hearing date of May 12, 2009
b) ordering plaintiff to serve upon the defendant a motion for
judgment on the pleadings within 30 days of service of Answer.
This order makes no provision for circumstances where there is
one timely Answer and the second defendant's Answer is filed
belatedly, if at all.
03-09-2009 Plaintiff serves motion for judgment on the pleadings
on both defendants. 
04-14-2009 Plaintiff will file his Motion together with defendants'
Oppositions, if any.
04-14-2009 Plaintiff will notify Clerk of Nantucket's failure to answer.
Plaintiff will file separate motion for default judgment only if ordered
by the Clerk to do so. Plaintiff will not oppose defendant's motion
to have default set aside.

The statute (30A MGL) which states that the Answer of the state agency
is the filing of its Administrative Record, makes no provision for
multiple defendants. Because the hearing date was set before the
Nantucket Building Department had filed its answer, and because if
either defendant failed to file an Opposition, there would be only
4 weeks between the filing of the motion and the hearing date as ordered,
I decided to go ahead and serve my motion for judgment on the pleadings
within 30 days of the filing of the Board of State Examiners' Answer
so as not to delay the hearing. I do not believe that a Motion for 
judgment on the pleadings is invalid even if filed before the Nantucket
Building Department files its Answer (if any), although I may be at a
serious disadvantage if Nantucket files an Answer which introduces issues
not included in the motion.

My plan is to file my Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on April 14,
and at that time to bring to the attention of the Clerk, Nantucket's
failure to answer. The Clerk is then obligated to find Nantucket in 
default and to order me to file a motion for a default judgment,
an order with which I will, of course, comply.  The motion for a default
judgment against Nantucket would presumably be adjudicated concurrently
with the motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Board of State
Examiners.

Thanks very much for your interest. There seem to me to be
no pressing questions demanding a decision at this time.

Sincerely,
Ernst Meyer