Dear Mr. Garmel, Just to bring you up to date: I finally did my homework, and think I now understand about the anomaly of multiple parties to an appeal from an administrative decision, where the administrative agency is required to file as its Answer to the appellant's Complaint nothing further than its administrative record. How are the other named defendants, in my case the Nantucket Building Department expected to file an Answer? The explanation which I now infer from 30A MGL 14, where this circumstance is barely hinted at, if that although s service of process of the Complaint must be made on all participants to the decision before the agency, only the agency, and not the participants become authorized and responsible for filing an answer. The participants in the hearing before the agency become inactive participants in the appeal. They have the legal right to intervene and to become active participants. But to exercise their right to intervene, the inactive partiocipants must file a motion and a pleading. This the Nantucket Building Department failed to do. Therefore, I have served a Motion to Strike, which I append, and if this motion is granted, and if the Attorney General fails to oppose my Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, well then I would be before the Court unopposed. That's too much to hope for, - but why not dream? Thanks again for your interest and your help. Sincerely, Ernst Meyer Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court Suffolk, ss. Civil Action No. SUCV2008-05664-E _____________________________________ | Ernst J. Meyer, | plaintiff | v. | Nantucket Building Department | and | Board of State Examiners of Plumbers | and Gasfitters,| respondents | _____________________________________| Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Documents filed by the Nantucket Building Department in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings The Plaintiff moves the Court to strike the following Documents received by him on April 11, 2009. The Town of Nantucket "Building Department's" Opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the municipal defendant's Request for Disposition, pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), and Request for Oral Argument The Town of Nantucket "Building Department's" Opposition to the "Motion" to Expand the Record in reference to a pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Request for Oral Argument The "Nantucket Building Department's" Appendix in Support of its Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings The reasons for this Motion to Strike are: a) the Nantucket Building Department is not an active party to these proceedings. The Nantucket Building Department is not the Agency whose Administrative Record constitutes the Answer to the Plaintiff's complaint, and not having intervened in the action, the Nantucket Building Department has no right to oppose the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. b) the Nantucket Building Department has not exercised its right to intervene in this proceeding and has not complied with MRCP 4(c) which states: A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. c) An Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by a person who is neither an active party to, nor an intervenor in these proceedings is fatally prejudicial to the Plaintiff's procedural rights. Ernst J. Meyer pro se 174 School Street Belmont MA 02478 617-484-8109 ernstmeyer@earthlink.net