Case Title: Padmanabhan v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12181

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2017-01-24T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12181 
 
BHARANIDHARAN PADMANABHAN  vs.  CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID 
SERVICES. 
 
 
January 24, 2017. 
 
 
Practice, Civil, Stay of proceedings, Moot case.  Moot Question. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In October, 2014, the petitioner commenced an action in the 
Superior Court, naming as defendants the respondent and certain 
individuals associated with Cambridge Health Alliance, the city 
of Cambridge, the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, 
and others.  As best as we can discern from the record before 
us, his complaint alleged claims of, among other things, 
Medicare or Medicaid fraud, which he became aware of during the 
course of his employment with some of the defendants; and 
retaliation by his employer when he spoke up about the perceived 
fraud.  In March, 2015, the case was removed to the United 
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  A 
judge in that court subsequently allowed a motion to dismiss 
certain Federal defendants and then remanded the case to the 
Superior Court.  The petitioner appealed from both the allowance 
of the motion to dismiss and the remand order to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and that appeal 
remains pending.  Meanwhile, in the Superior Court, shortly 
after the remand order, the remaining defendants filed motions 
to dismiss, which, it appears, the petitioner opposed.  The 
docket further indicates that on June 7, 2016, a status 
conference was scheduled for July 19, 2016. 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
On July 11, 2016, the petitioner filed an "emergency motion 
to stay improper proceedings in State court" in the county 
court, which the single justice treated as a petition pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  He argued that the State court lacked 
jurisdiction because his appeal from the remand order remained 
pending in the Federal court, and he asked this court to stay 
further proceedings in the Superior Court.  He also asked the 
court to order that the status conference scheduled for July 19, 
2016, be canceled.  While his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition was 
pending, the July 19, 2016, status conference proceeded as 
scheduled.  A docket entry dated July 20, 2016, indicates that 
because the petitioner's appeal to the First Circuit remained 
pending, the status conference would be continued to October 18, 
2016.  The single justice subsequently denied the G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, petition. 
 
 
The petitioner 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).  Technically speaking, 
that rule does not apply here because the petitioner is not 
seeking relief from any interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  
Rather, he seeks a stay of the trial court proceedings.  It is 
unclear from the record whether he has sought such a stay in the 
trial court, but he has, in any event, essentially received the 
relief that he seeks:  at the July 19, 2016, status conference, 
the conference was continued to October 18, 2016, because of the 
petitioner's pending appeal to the First Circuit.  Subsequently, 
at the October 18 conference, which has since occurred, the 
matter was again continued "until the [F]ederal appeal is 
resolved."  The petitioner's request for a stay of the 
proceedings is therefore moot.  See Rasten v. Northeastern 
Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 
(2001).  Even if the trial court proceedings had not been 
stayed, and if at some point in the future, after resolution of 
the petitioner's Federal appeal, the trial court proceedings 
continue, the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy:  he 
may appeal, in the regular course, from any adverse judgment 
against him in the trial court.  Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
is properly denied where, as here, "there are adequate and 
effective routes other than c. 211, § 3, by which the 
petitioning party may seek relief."  Greco v. Plymouth Sav. 
Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996), and cases cited. 
 
 
This case does not, in short, present a situation where 
extraordinary relief from this court is required, and the single 
3 
 
 
 
justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on papers filed, accompanied by a 
memorandum of law. 
 
Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, pro se. 
                                                 
 
1 In his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, the petitioner also 
asked the court to "[order] bar counsel" to investigate the 
"filing of a fraudulent pleading" by his former attorney.  
According to the petitioner, the attorney, who had previously 
represented him, was no longer his attorney at the time she 
filed a certain motion in the Superior Court.  The single 
justice did not err or abuse her discretion in declining to 
issue an order to compel an investigation on this record and in 
these circumstances.  The petitioner is free to file a complaint 
with the Office of Bar Counsel should he wish to do so.