Case Title: Sharma v. County Mortgage, LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13135

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2022-03-10T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13135 
 
VEENA SHARMA  vs.  COUNTY MORTGAGE, LLC. 
 
 
March 10, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Mortgage, Foreclosure.  Practice, Civil, Venue. 
 
 
 
Veena Sharma appeals from a judgment of the county court, 
denying, without a hearing, her request to transfer to this 
court a civil action currently pending in the Superior Court.  
We affirm. 
 
 
In the pending Superior Court case, Sharma alleged that she 
had been the victim of predatory lending practices in connection 
with the mortgage on her home, and she moved to enjoin an 
imminent foreclosure.  That motion was denied by a judge in the 
Superior Court.  In addition, the judge, acting sua sponte, 
dismissed Sharma's complaint for failure to state a claim on 
which relief could be granted.  That dismissal was reversed by 
the Appeals Court, and the matter was remanded to the Superior 
Court for further proceedings.  Sharma v. County Mtge., LLC, 97 
Mass. App. Ct. 1126 (2020).  On remand, Sharma filed a motion 
for a change of venue to a different county.  A different judge 
denied that motion for failure to comply with Superior Court 
Rule 9A.  Sharma thereafter filed a new motion for a change of 
venue, which was likewise denied for failure to comply with 
Superior Court Rule 9A.1  Sharma's petition to the county court 
ensued.  In that petition, Sharma sought a transfer to this 
court, alleging that she could not get a fair hearing in the 
Superior Court.  Treating her petition as one seeking relief 
 
1 A motion to dismiss is now pending in the underlying 
Superior Court case.  We express no view on the merits of that 
motion. 
2 
 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, the single justice denied relief 
without a hearing. 
 
"Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary.  We will 
not disturb the single justice's denial of such relief absent an 
abuse of discretion or other clear error of law."  C.E. v. J.E., 
472 Mass. 1016, 1016 (2015), quoting Bledsoe v. Commissioner of 
Correction, 470 Mass. 1017, 1017 (2014).  To conclude that such 
an error or abuse of discretion occurred here, we would have to 
find that the single justice was obligated to transfer Sharma's 
case from the Superior Court to this court.  Although the single 
justice had the authority to do so, G. L. c. 211, § 4A, the 
decision whether to do so is discretionary.  See Stow v. 
Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1002 (1996).  There is no basis to find 
that the single justice was required to exercise that authority 
in this case, and no indication that he abused his discretion in 
declining to do so. 
 
 
Moreover, to the extent Sharma's petition can be read as 
seeking relief from the denials of her motions for a change of 
venue in the Superior Court,2 relief was properly denied on the 
ground that Sharma had adequate remedies in the ordinary 
appellate process.  See, e.g., C.E., 472 Mass. at 1016.  Sharma 
offers no reason why she could not obtain review of those 
denials on appeal after a final judgment in the Superior Court.  
In addition, Sharma could have sought immediate interlocutory 
review by filing a petition for relief under G. L. c. 231, 
§ 118, first par., to be considered by a single justice of the 
Appeals Court.  "Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie 
where review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice."  Greco v. 
Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996).  The 
single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by 
denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Veena Sharma, pro se. 
 
Rosemary Traini for the defendant. 
 
2 If Sharma was seeking relief from these or any other 
interlocutory rulings of the Superior Court, she was obligated 
to comply with the provisions of S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 
434 Mass. 1301 (2001), before filing her brief.  She did not do 
so.