← All cases
2582CV00364Up to date

Abouelkhier, Dany et al vs. Marina Bay Residences, LLC et al

Superior Court·Norfolk County·Last checked Jul 25, 2026, 8:01 PM·View on masscourts.org ↗

01— Where things stand right now

Judgment was entered against the plaintiffs on February 17, 2026 after the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute — and that judgment includes the landlord’s counterclaim against Dany Abouelkhier. The plaintiffs have appealed and also asked the trial judge to vacate the judgment; that motion (#46) is still undecided, and the hearing on it has now been cancelled and rescheduled twice, most recently the 7/29/2026 date. Meanwhile, on 6/12/2026 Judge Connolly ordered Abouelkhier to answer Marina Bay’s post-judgment asset discovery within 45 days (denying the landlord’s fee request), and Abouelkhier has moved to stay that discovery until the vacate motion is decided.

02— Background

The case owner's account — not part of the court record.

This case holds Dany Abouelkhier’s individual claims — and the landlord’s counterclaim against him for unpaid rent — after Judge Leighton severed them out of the class action 2382CV00389 at a March 2025 hearing, following a falling out between Abouelkhier, his wife Sandra Fernandez, and their attorney, Jonathan Sweet of Keches Law Group. Beth Materna replaced Abouelkhier as the class action’s lead plaintiff.

03— The case in a nutshell

This case is the leftover piece of a bigger fight. According to the case owner, Dany Abouelkhier’s individual claims against his Marina Bay landlord and management company — plus the landlord’s counterclaim against him for unpaid rent — were split off (“severed”) from a class action (2382CV00389) in March 2025 after a falling out with class counsel; that background is the owner’s account, not something these filings establish.

What the record does show is that once the claims landed in this stand-alone case, Abouelkhier, his wife Sandra Fernandez, and their minor child K.F. refused to litigate it. They filed a stream of “strict limited appearance / no consent to jurisdiction / no participation on the merits” notices objecting to the severance and to being added as parties.

On February 10, 2026 the judge took them at their word: she allowed Marina Bay’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and ordered judgment for the defendants on all claims and counterclaims. Judgment entered February 17, 2026.

Since then the plaintiffs have been fighting on two fronts: appealing to the Appeals Court, and asking the trial judge to undo the judgment under Rule 60(b). The landlord, meanwhile, has moved into collection mode — Rule 69 discovery into Abouelkhier’s assets so it can actually collect on its counterclaim judgment.

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

The merits phase is over. What’s live now is post-judgment: (1) three notices of appeal filed February 17, 2026 and transcript orders placed in June 2026 to build the appellate record; and (2) Abouelkhier’s March 25, 2026 Rule 60(b)(1)/(6) and 41(b)(2) motion (#46) asking Judge Connolly to vacate the dismissal and put the case back on the active list. Fernandez and K.F. filed parallel Rule 60(b)(4) motions arguing the judgment is void as to them.

The hearing on the vacate motion has been repeatedly pushed. Abouelkhier got the May 6, 2026 hearing continued because, per his motion, his stepfather had died and he had to travel overseas for the funeral (Marina Bay did not oppose). The court then cancelled the July 21 date on its own, and on July 21 cancelled the July 29 date as well, with rescheduling notices promised.

On the collection side, Marina Bay served Rule 69 asset discovery and a deposition notice. When Abouelkhier didn’t respond or appear, it moved to compel on June 9, 2026. On June 12 Judge Connolly allowed the motion in part — 45 days for Abouelkhier to comply — but denied the landlord’s request for fees and costs.

Abouelkhier immediately countered with a motion to stay that enforcement discovery until motion #46 is decided, arguing it makes no sense to dig into his assets under a judgment that may be vacated. Marina Bay opposed; he filed a limited reply. That stay motion appears to still be pending.

06— What's next

The two things waiting on the judge are the Rule 60(b) motions to vacate the judgment (Abouelkhier’s #46, plus Fernandez’s and K.F.’s void-judgment motions) and Abouelkhier’s motion to stay Rule 69 discovery.

The court said a new notice rescheduling the vacate hearing will be sent; no new date appears in the docket. In the meantime, the 45-day compliance clock from the June 12 order is running unless the judge stays it.

If the judge denies the vacate motion, the appeal already noticed becomes the plaintiffs’ main path, and Marina Bay will keep pressing collection. If she grants it, the case goes back to active litigation. The appeal itself is in the record-assembly stage — transcripts have been ordered for the January 12 and June 5, 2026 hearings.

07— Reading between the lines

The February 17 endorsement is the whole ballgame, and it’s blunt: the judge wrote that she invited these plaintiffs to come forward and address the court, they declined, claimed “limited representation,” objected to the severance, took no action, and restated an intention to refuse to participate. That is a court dismissing a case because the plaintiffs told it, repeatedly and in writing, that they weren’t going to litigate it.

It looks like the strategy was to treat the severance as illegitimate and refuse to engage with the severed case, preserving objections for appeal rather than defending on the merits. That’s a coherent position if you truly think the severance was void — but it’s a high-risk one, because refusing to prosecute is exactly what Rule 41(b)(2) punishes, and the counterclaim against Abouelkhier didn’t go away just because he stopped participating. Now there’s a judgment against him.

The post-judgment filings have a recognizable pattern: nearly every one is captioned “special appearance,” “strict limited appearance,” “no waiver of rights,” “protective purposes only.” Some of that is legitimate preservation of a jurisdictional objection — Fernandez and K.F. genuinely have a point worth raising that judgment entered on February 17 while the court had, on March 4, still “RESERVED” on whether they were properly before it. But the sheer volume of no-waiver boilerplate on routine filings like a transcript order reads more like reflex than strategy.

Marina Bay is playing it straight and hard. It moved to dismiss, won, and immediately went after assets under Rule 69. Its Rule 9A/9C certificate shows it gave Abouelkhier an extra week to oppose after he reported the family death, then moved to compel when he still didn’t engage — and notably the judge gave it the compelled discovery but denied its fees, which suggests she saw the non-compliance as understandable rather than contumacious.

Abouelkhier’s stay motion is the most sensible thing he’s filed here. The logic is hard to argue with: don’t force a full asset examination under a judgment the court may be about to vacate. Whether it works depends entirely on how the judge views motion #46, and given the language of her February endorsement, she does not appear to have been impressed by the non-participation.

The repeated cancellations of the vacate hearing are the court’s own doing, not either side’s stalling — both the July 21 and July 29 dates were struck “by Court prior to date.” That’s calendar management, not gamesmanship.

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

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