Case Title: Lieber v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13126

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13126 
 
CHARLES M. LIEBER  vs.  PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
& another.1 
 
 
November 15, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Charles M. Lieber, a professor at Harvard 
University, is currently a defendant in a criminal proceeding in 
the Federal court.  In connection with that proceeding, and 
pursuant to a university indemnification policy, Lieber sought 
the advancement of criminal legal defense fees from the 
university.  His request was denied, and he thereafter commenced 
an action in the Superior Court against the university claiming, 
among other things, breach of contract and breach of the implied 
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  At the same time that 
he filed his complaint, he also filed a motion for a preliminary 
injunction seeking the advancement of his legal fees.  A judge 
in the Superior Court denied the motion.   
 
Lieber thereafter filed a notice of appeal, indicating his 
plan both to appeal to the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. 
c. 231, § 118, second par., and to file a petition in the county 
court pursuant G. L. c. 211, § 3.  His G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition was subsequently entered in the county court on March 
31, 2021.  While the petition was pending, a different judge in 
the Superior Court acted on the parties' cross motions for 
judgment on the pleadings, allowing in part and denying in part 
both motions.  Lieber thereafter filed a supplement to his G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition, on May 6, 2021, seeking relief from the 
judgment on the pleadings ruling as well as relief from the 
 
 
1 Katherine N. Lapp. 
  
2 
 
denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction.  A single 
justice denied the petition without a hearing, and Lieber 
appeals. 
  
 
While Lieber's G. L. c. 211, § 3, was pending before the 
single justice, his appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, 
second par., was entered in the Appeals Court, on May 4, 2021.  
Shortly thereafter, Lieber filed an application for direct 
appellate review in this court, which was allowed on June 29, 
2021.  Lieber raises essentially the same issues in that appeal 
before us that he raised in the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition 
before the single justice.2  In short, Lieber pursued two 
separate avenues of relief, perhaps as a precautionary measure, 
but where the issues raised in the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition 
are already before the full court on direct review, there is no 
need for us to consider Lieber's appeal from the denial of that 
petition.3,4   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
 
2 Although Lieber's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, as 
supplemented, also sought relief from the trial court's ruling 
on the parties' cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, the 
essential, substantive indemnification issues in both the G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition and the G. L. c. 231, § 118, second par., 
appeal are the same. 
   
 
3 Even if those issues were not already before us on direct 
review, Lieber would not have been entitled to extraordinary 
relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, because, as the single 
justice correctly noted, he has or had adequate alternative 
remedies.  With respect to the denial of his request for a 
preliminary injunction, he had the right as a matter of law to 
appeal to the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, 
second par., the very relief that he pursued and that has led to 
his pending appeal in this court.  With respect to the 
interlocutory ruling on the cross motions for judgment on the 
pleadings, he could have petitioned a single justice of the 
Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., see 
Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) 
("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review 
under c. 231, § 118, would suffice"), and, in any event, he can 
appeal as a matter of right from the final judgment if it is 
adverse to him.   
 
 
4 The G. L. c. 231, § 118, second par., appeal has been 
argued and is currently under advisement. 
3 
 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
David R. Suny & Andrea L. Davulis for the petitioner.