On March 6th, 2025, the court held the first hearing in this case. The hearing mainly addressed the Defendants' motion to extend the deadline for them to serve a response to our lawsuit for another 60-days. Though we were disappointed that the judge decided to grant that second lengthy extension, the hearing went well overall. The judge had read our 1st amended lawsuit complaint, which he described as "voluminous, in a good way." He also made positive comments about the quality of our complaint and the seriousness of the constitutional rights violations involved.

Though this delay is frustrating, it is only a delay. The judge scheduled additional hearings in the near future. 

A private Boston law firm contacted us at the end of January, 2025, said they represent the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), and asked if we would agree to let them add Massport as a defendant. That would add complication and cost to our lawsuit that is already challenging, so we told them no. The law firm then served a motion—that did not comply with MA Superior Court Rules or MA Rules of Civil Procedure—on us plaintiffs, requesting that the court add Massport as a defendant. We promptly served that law firm with our Opposition to their motion. The law firm claims to have sent the motion and opposition to the court, but it's not on the case's docket yet. You can read our Opposition here.

Immediately upon us serving the defendants with the lawsuit complaint and summons, their lawyers in the MA Attorney General's office asked us to agree to granting them a 60-day extension on top of the standard 20 days that the MA Rules of Civil Procedure give them to serve a written response to our lawsuit. And they wanted an even bigger extension to the 10 days the rules give them to respond to our motion for a preliminary injunction. We said no, but offered to agree to a more moderate and reasonable extension. They rejected that offer and filed an "emergency motion" asking a judge to grant them the huge extension they wanted. We swung immediately into action and prepared and filed an opposition to that motion, which you can view and read here. As you can see in our opposition, we pointed out that the defendants—via their attorneys—made multiple false assertions and other rather ridiculous arguments. But, without explanation, several days later a judge granted them the huge extension they sought. They now have until February 10th, 2025 to serve written responses to our lawsuit complaint and our motion for preliminary injunction. Though this is a disappointing delay, it is only a delay. We will persevere and see justice served.

On November 22, 2024 we had a special process server serve the lawsuit complaint and our motion for a preliminary injunction on the Defendants at the MA Attorney General's office in Boston. 

Today we paid the additional filing fees the court charged us so that the lawsuit may proceed. (Here's the court's receipt.) Any donations to help us cover these costs would be much appreciated!

The court accepted and filed the lawsuit while charging just over $300 total in filing fees. But on November 12th the court informed us that it failed to charge the required filing fee for each plaintiff. Thus, we have had to revise our current goal for donations upward to cover our costs.

On November 11, 2024 the MA Superior Court of Middlesex County accepted and filed our lawsuit complaint. The court assigned it case number 2481CV02958 and titled the case Mukhtar, Amgad O. et al vs. Healey, Maura et al. You may view a copy of the full lawsuit complaint with its exhibits that was stamped and filed by the court here.

Today, November 8th, 2024, I have filed our lawsuit complaint online in Middlesex County Superior Court, MA. I expect to have further updates next week.