On July 9, 2025, Karen Read’s legal team served a notice of motion to dismiss in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Boston police officer John O’Keefe. While the actual motion has not yet been made public, this filing signals the first major move in the civil case since Read’s criminal trial ended in June.

Notice-only stage: Under Massachusetts Superior Court Rule this notice simply alerts the court and plaintiffs—they haven’t yet submitted the actual motion or supporting legal briefs.

No substantive details yet: None of the public filings include arguments or legal grounds—just that the notice was served. However you can find responses by both C.F. McCarty’s and Waterfall Bar and Grille to the civil suits in the Justice Case Analysis documents portal.

Timeline: The underlying lawsuit was filed in August 2024; civil proceedings were paused during Read’s criminal trials, which concluded in June 2025.

A notice of motion is essentially a heads-up to the court and opposing parties that Read’s lawyers plan to ask for the case—or parts of it—to be thrown out. It does not yet include the full legal arguments or evidence. Those details will be revealed when the motion itself and supporting briefs are filed with Plymouth Superior Court.

In wrongful death cases like this, motions to dismiss often argue:

 🔵 That the lawsuit fails to state a valid claim under the law.

 🔵 That certain issues were already resolved in the criminal trial and cannot be relitigated (collateral estoppel).

 🔵 Or that there are procedural or jurisdictional flaws that require dismissal.

At this stage, it’s too soon to know. Courts rarely dismiss cases outright unless there’s a clear legal defect. However, Read’s attorneys could attempt to use her criminal acquittal on murder and manslaughter charges as a shield against some civil claims.

That said, civil trials operate under a lower burden of proof than criminal trials, which could make dismissal harder to achieve.

📢NEW: Meanwhile, Judge Cannone’s transfer to the civil bench at Plymouth Superior—where O’Keefe v. Read is active—comes less than a month after the criminal trial concluded.

In a development raising eyebrows across Massachusetts legal circles, Judge Beverly Cannone, who presided over Karen Read’s recent criminal trial, has been reassigned to Plymouth Superior Court’s Civil Session—the same court where Paul O’Keefe has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Read.

While there’s no official confirmation that Cannone has been assigned to the Read civil case specifically, her presence in the same division where the case is pending is noteworthy—especially as Read’s legal team just filed a notice of motion to dismiss the civil complaint on July 9, 2025.

As of this publication, a case judge has not yet been assigned.

Could Cannone end up overseeing the civil proceedings in a case she already knows intimately? And if so, what could that mean for both sides?

If Cannone is ultimately assigned to the Read civil case, it would be a rare scenario: the same judge overseeing both a criminal trial and a follow-up wrongful death suit.

That brings pros and cons:

Pro: She’s deeply familiar with the record, witness behavior, and legal arguments.

Con: She may face scrutiny for perceived bias—despite a mistrial, some public opinion around the case remains polarized.

Still, it’s worth noting: Cannone’s transfer does not guarantee she will preside over this particular case. In fact, with civil trials often taking 12–18 months to reach court, it’s possible she rotates out of the civil division long before trial begins.

✅ Legally, no automatic conflict

In Massachusetts, there’s no law or ethical rule that outright bars a judge from presiding over both a criminal case and a related civil case involving the same parties. Superior Court judges are generalists and routinely hear different types of cases—even ones that overlap factually.

✅ Why it’s not usually a problem

Civil and criminal trials have different legal standards (“beyond a reasonable doubt” vs. “preponderance of evidence”).

Judges are presumed to be impartial and capable of setting aside what they’ve seen or heard in prior proceedings.

Unless there’s evidence Cannone has a personal interest in the outcome or bias against a party, it wouldn’t rise to a legal conflict.

✅ But perception matters

While there may be no legal conflict, defense attorneys could argue there’s an appearance of bias because Cannone is already so steeped in the facts and public controversy from the criminal trial. If Read’s lawyers feel her prior involvement might color her decisions on motions or evidence in the civil case, they could file a motion to recuse—asking her to step aside. Judges decide for themselves whether to grant such motions, and unless there’s strong proof of bias, they often deny them.

Unlike some states where judges specialize, Massachusetts Superior Court judges are generalists. They routinely rotate between criminal, civil, and family law sessions based on court needs, judicial availability, and administrative planning.

According to Massachusetts Trial Court Rule XII, interdepartmental judicial assignments are made by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court in coordination with the Office of Court Management. Judges can be moved between divisions or counties depending on case backlog, emergency coverage, or scheduling preferences.

Rotation periods typically last 3 to 6 months, though some sit longer in high-volume divisions. Judges often cover cases in multiple counties—even if they’re an hour apart, as in the case of Norfolk (where Read’s criminal trial was held) and Plymouth.

This means Cannone’s move may simply reflect routine scheduling—not anything targeted or strategic. But the timing? It’s enough to spark speculation.

In Massachusetts Superior Court, judges typically rotate between criminal and civil sessions every 3–6 months. But in high-profile or complex cases, a judge may be specially assigned to oversee all phases of a case—from pretrial motions through trial and retrial—for the sake of consistency. That’s why Judge Beverly Cannone remained on the Karen Read criminal trial for over two years, despite the usual rotation schedule.

Her new assignment to the Plymouth Superior Court Civil Session likely reflects a return to her standard rotation now that the Read criminal proceedings have ended.

On July 3, 2025, Karen Read significantly strengthened her civil defense team by adding three new attorneys: Aaron Davis, Charles Waters, and Damon Seligson—all from the firm Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green. They join the growing roster of six civil attorneys now representing Read. 

This shift reflects a clear strategic move to bolster her legal firepower in the wrongful death action, signaling Read’s team is preparing for a complex and potentially high-stakes battle ahead.

Karen Read’s listed attorneys are NOW: 

Melick and Porter

George, Esq., Christopher

Keville, Jr., Esq., William L

Palladini, Esq., Marissa K

Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green

Davis, Esq., Aaron

Waters, Esq., Charles

Seligson, Esq., Damon