← All cases
2577CV01253Up to date

Kenzo Fernandez, a minor, by his mother and next of Friend Sandra Fernandez De Villvicencio et al vs. CUBE 3 Studio, LLC

Superior Court·Essex County·Last checked Jul 25, 2026, 8:05 PM·View on masscourts.org ↗

01— Where things stand right now

Cube 3’s two knockout motions (partial judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment) are fully briefed and waiting to be heard. The July 9, 2026 hearing was continued at the plaintiff’s request, and the judge ordered the parties to pick a new date from five August options and report back by July 16. Cube 3 reported its availability (preferring August 11) and said the plaintiff never picked a date; the plaintiff filed her own status report and, on July 21, a notice that more medical documentation is coming. So the hearing date is still unsettled and the court has not yet ruled on the dispositive motions.

02— The case in a nutshell

Sandra Fernandez De Villavicencio, representing herself, sued the architecture firm Cube 3 Studio, LLC in November 2025 on behalf of herself and her minor son Kenzo. She lived in a unit at the Meriel Marina Bay apartment complex at 552 Victory Road in Quincy from the summer of 2018 through October 2024, and her complaint alleges that Cube 3’s design of the building caused problems (the filings reference water intrusion, mold, and alleged concealment of defects) that injured her and her son.

Her complaint pleads negligence/architectural malpractice, loss of consortium for the minor, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, and a Chapter 93A consumer claim.

Cube 3’s central defense is a hard deadline written into Massachusetts law: G.L. c. 260, § 2B, the six-year “statute of repose” for construction and design claims. Cube 3 says the building got its certificate of occupancy in July 2017 and was substantially complete in April–May 2018, so any design claim had to be filed by 2024 at the latest — and this suit was filed in November 2025.

There is also important background: Cube 3 was a defendant in a much larger construction-defect case brought by the building’s owner, Marina Bay Residences, in Norfolk Superior Court. Cube 3 settled out of that case and got a final judgment in its favor in November 2025, and its filings say Fernandez had tried repeatedly to inject herself into that case before filing this one.

03— Who's involved
04— What's happening now

This case is in the “can it even go forward?” phase. Cube 3 filed two dispositive motions early — a partial motion for judgment on the pleadings in February 2026 and a partial motion for summary judgment in March 2026 — both arguing the core claims are dead under the six-year statute of repose because the building opened in 2017 and was substantially complete in 2018.

Fernandez filed a substantive written opposition. Her argument is clever and, notably, does not fight the law: she concedes a statute of repose can’t be “tolled.” Instead she argues there was a second, later improvement — a 2019–2021 façade demolition and building-envelope reconstruction she describes in a sworn affidavit — and that the six-year clock for that work would run from its own completion, not from 2017. She also argues under Rule 56(d) that summary judgment is premature because no discovery has happened and the key documents (post-2018 change orders, revised drawings, construction administration records) are in Cube 3’s hands.

Her earlier motion to compel documents and insurance disclosures was declared moot by the court in March 2026, with the judge noting she could instead seek a protective order or an extension of deadlines.

The hearing on the dispositive motions has now been pushed twice, both times at her request. In April 2026 she got an unopposed continuance because of a family medical emergency abroad (her mother’s fall and surgery), moving the hearing to July 9. On July 7 — less than 48 hours before that hearing — she filed an emergency motion asking to push it past October 1, 2026, this time based on her own medical condition, supported by a physician’s letter from Madrid dated June 25, 2026, which she asked the court to keep sealed (the court allowed the impoundment).

Judge McCarthy-Neyman allowed the continuance but was visibly unhappy about the timing: her written order says the last-minute filing wasted judicial resources, and pointedly notes the doctor’s letter was already two weeks old when the motion was filed. She refused to push the hearing to October and instead ordered the parties to agree on one of five August dates, offering video conference to accommodate the plaintiff.

Since then, Cube 3 reported that it repeatedly emailed and called Fernandez and got no date from her; her one email said she couldn’t agree to August and asked for a joint request for late September. Cube 3 refused and reported its own availability, preferring August 11. Fernandez filed her own status report the same day, and on July 21 filed notice that more medical documentation is coming.

05— What's next

The immediate open question is the hearing date. The judge said the hearing must happen before August 28, 2026, from one of five specific August dates, and she remains assigned to the Civil A session only through that date. Expect the court to simply pick a date — Cube 3 named August 11 as its preference — unless the plaintiff’s forthcoming medical submission persuades the judge to move it again.

After that hearing, the judge will rule on Cube 3’s two motions. The realistic outcomes are: dismissal of the design-negligence-type counts under the statute of repose, denial or deferral so discovery can happen on the 2019–2021 façade work, or something in between (some counts out, some surviving). The discovery deadline in the case is currently November 1, 2027, so if anything survives, there is a long runway ahead.

Watch also for whether Cube 3 responds to the July 21 notice — and, if the plaintiff seeks yet another delay, whether the court’s patience runs out.

06— Reading between the lines

Cube 3 is running a clean, aggressive, entirely legitimate defense playbook: hit hard and early with a purely legal argument that avoids the messy facts. The statute of repose is a genuinely brutal rule — Massachusetts courts enforce it even where there was fraudulent concealment, even for minors — and Cube 3 backs it with the actual certificate of occupancy and signed certificates of substantial completion. That’s a strong position, not a bluff.

Fernandez, litigating alone against a Boston defense firm, has written a better opposition than most pro se filings. She correctly identified the only real crack in the repose defense: if the 2019–2021 façade reconstruction was a separate “improvement,” the clock for that work starts later. Whether that theory survives is a real legal question, and her Rule 56(d) point — that she’s being asked to disprove Cube 3’s post-2018 involvement using documents only Cube 3 has, before any discovery — is a legitimate argument, not a stall.

That said, the delay pattern is the elephant in the room. Two continuances, both from her, both medical, both filed at the last minute. The first was unopposed and sympathetic. The second drew a written rebuke from the judge, who specifically noted the supporting doctor’s letter was two weeks old when the “emergency” motion landed 48 hours before the hearing. Then, after the judge gave five dates and offered video conference, the record shows Cube 3 emailing and calling repeatedly and getting no date in return — while she asked for late September instead.

I can’t say whether the medical situation is serious; the letter is sealed and I’m not going to second-guess it. But procedurally, this looks like a party trying to push a hearing that could end her case as far into the future as possible, and a judge who has now noticed. The July 21 “notice of forthcoming supplemental medical submission” appears to be setting up another continuance request.

Cube 3’s refusal to assent to any delay is hardball but understandable — every month of delay is a month it stays exposed to a case it believes is legally dead on arrival. The risk for Fernandez is that continued non-cooperation on scheduling starts to cost her credibility on the merits arguments, which are actually her strongest asset here.

A candid read, not legal advice.
07— The record, translated

Newest first — the plain-English reading leads; the court's wording follows.