Case Title: Navom v. Clerk of the Superior Court in Middlesex County

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12627

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-07-16T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12627 
 
BRANDON WYNN NAVOM  vs.  CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IN 
MIDDLESEX COUNTY & another.1 
 
 
July 16, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior 
courts.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Brandon Wynn Navom, appeals from a judgment 
of a single justice of this court denying his petition seeking 
relief in the nature of mandamus and pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In October 2017, Navom commenced an action in the Superior 
Court against the respondent Martin J. Walsh.2  After Walsh filed 
a motion to dismiss the complaint, Navom served written 
discovery requests.  In response, Walsh filed a motion to stay 
discovery, on April 9, 2018.  On June 4, 2018, and with no 
opposition from Navom having been filed, a judge in the Superior 
Court allowed the motion to stay.  Shortly thereafter, and 
notwithstanding the stay, Navom filed a motion for final 
judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 33 (a) (4), as appearing 
in 436 Mass. 1401 (2002), on the basis that Walsh had failed to 
respond to the discovery requests.  The motion was denied on 
August 31.  On September 5, Navom filed an "Emergency Averred 
Complaint" in the county court seeking "relief in nature of 
mandamus, an injunction in equity," and relief pursuant to G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, and asking the court to order the Superior Court 
                                                 
 
1 Martin J. Walsh. 
 
 
2 Walsh is the mayor of Boston.  In the underlying Superior 
Court action, the petitioner named Walsh in his personal 
capacity. 
2 
 
clerk to enter judgment in Navom's favor.  The single justice 
denied the petition without a hearing, and Navom appeals. 
 
 
 
In response to Navom's appeal, the respondent clerk has 
indicated his belief that the appeal is subject to S.J.C. Rule 
2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), because, in his view, 
Navom is challenging an interlocutory discovery ruling of the 
trial court -- that is, the denial of Navom's motion for 
judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 33 (a) (4).  As styled by 
Navom, however, the relief that he sought in his G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, petition was an order mandating the clerk to enter a final 
judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 33 (a) (6),  as appearing 
in 454 Mass. 1404 (2009).  Regardless of whether rule 2:21 
applies, however, it is clear that this is not a situation where 
extraordinary relief from this court is required.   
 
 
Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied "where 
there are adequate and effective routes . . . by which the 
petitioning party may seek relief."  Greco v. Plymouth Sav. 
Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996).  Similarly, "[r]elief in the 
nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the 
discretion of the court where no other relief is 
available."  Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 
(2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 
(1999).  Here, there is other relief available to Navom.  There 
is no reason why he cannot adequately obtain review of his 
claims in his direct appeal in the underlying Superior Court 
action, which is now pending in the Appeals Court.3 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 
denying relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, for the petitioner. 
 
Nicole M. O'Connor, Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel, & 
Nieve Anjomi, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Martin J. 
Walsh. 
                                                 
 
3 While Navom's appeal from the single justice's judgment 
has been pending in this court, Walsh's motion to dismiss in the 
underlying action was allowed in the Superior Court.  Navom has 
appealed; his appeal has been entered in the Appeals Court; and, 
according to the docket in that appeal, Navom filed his brief 
and record appendix on June 21, 2019.