Case Title: Cole v. Citibank, N.A.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13517

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2024-02-26T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13517 
 
JONATHAN S. COLE  vs.  CITIBANK, N.A. 
 
 
February 26, 2024. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Jonathan S. Cole, appeals from a judgment 
of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.    
 
 
Cole is the defendant in a debt collection action in the 
District Court.  He moved to dismiss the complaint in that case, 
and a judge denied the motion after a hearing.  Cole subsequently 
filed several additional motions.  Among other things, he sought 
to appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss to a single 
justice of the Appellate Division pursuant to G. L. c. 231, 
§ 118A; he moved for the District Court judge who had denied the 
motion to dismiss to recuse himself; and he filed a motion to 
stay with a single justice of the Appeals Court.  None of these 
motions was successful.1  Cole then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition in the county court, seeking a variety of relief, 
including, among other things, dismissal of the debt collection 
 
 
1 The petitioner's appeal to a single justice of the 
Appellate Division was dismissed on the basis that relief 
pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118A, was not available (i.e., that 
the statute did not apply in the circumstances).  As to the 
motion to recuse, the District Court docket indicates that the 
motion is moot, although there is no indication in the record as 
to why.  And, as to the motion to stay filed in the Appeals 
Court, a single justice denied the motion essentially on the 
basis that the motion was not properly before that court.  
 
 
2 
action, on the basis of "fraud on the court"; referral of 
counsel representing the plaintiff in the debt collection action 
to the Board of Bar Overseers, as well as a stay of any 
proceedings in any Massachusetts court in which plaintiff's 
counsel is involved on the basis that counsel is not registered 
to conduct business in Massachusetts; and referral of the 
District Court judge who denied Cole's motion to dismiss to the 
Commission on Judicial Conduct.  The single justice denied the 
petition without a hearing. 
 
 
Cole has now filed what appears to have been intended as a 
memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  That rule, which applies here 
only to the extent that Cole seeks relief from an interlocutory 
ruling in the trial court, i.e., the denial of his motion to 
dismiss, requires a showing that "review of the trial court 
decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final 
adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available 
means."  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  Cole has not made, and cannot 
make, such a showing.  There is no reason why review of the 
denial of Cole's motion to dismiss cannot adequately be obtained 
on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court.  
See Foley v. Lowell Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 398 Mass. 
800, 802 (1986) ("Where a petitioner can raise his claim in the 
normal course of trial and appeal, relief will be denied").   
  
 
Cole also claims that he has filed various motions in the 
District Court that have not been docketed, and has included in 
the record what appear to be copies of those motions with date 
stamps from the District Court.  It is difficult to discern from 
the record, and from the District Court docket, whether those 
motions have in fact been docketed, but if they have not, we see 
no reason why not.  We trust that if the motions were properly 
filed, they will be properly docketed.2  Finally, to the extent 
that Cole raises issues regarding plaintiff's counsel or the 
District Court judge, the proper place to raise those issues is 
not via G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Rather, he might raise his concerns 
with the Board of Bar Overseers or the Commission on Judicial 
Conduct, respectively.   
 
 
2 If there was in fact a basis for rejecting the 
petitioner's motions, or declining to docket them, it would 
behoove the clerk, and aid the appellate courts, to indicate any 
such basis.  See, e.g., Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court 
for Civ. Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1019 
(2015). 
 
 
3 
  
 
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Jonathan S. Cole, pro se.