Title: Aronova v. Mohamed

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12578 
 
MARGARITA ARONOVA  vs.  MOSTAFA MOHAMED. 
 
 
 
February 21, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
District Court, Small claims procedure, Appellate Division.  
Practice, Civil, Small claims procedure, Appellate 
Division:  appeal. 
 
 
 
Margarita Aronova appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, her petition for relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Aronova was the defendant in a small claims 
matter commenced in the District Court by Mostafa Mohamed, to 
whom Aronova had rented a room.  Mohamed claimed, among other 
things, that Aronova had violated the security deposit statute.  
Aronova did not request that the matter be transferred to the 
regular civil docket pursuant to G. L. c. 218, § 24, and Rule 
4(a) of the Uniform Small Claims Rules.  A magistrate found for 
Mohamed, and Aronova claimed her right to a trial by a jury of 
six.  For reasons that are not apparent on the record, the 
matter was tried not to a jury, but to a judge in the District 
Court, who also found for Mohamed.1  Aronova did not request that 
the judge report any questions to the Appellate Division.  In 
her petition, Aronova sought review of the judge's decision.  We 
affirm. 
 
 
As a petitioner seeking extraordinary relief, Aronova bore 
the burden to "demonstrate both a substantial claim of violation 
of [her] substantive rights and error that cannot be remedied 
under the ordinary review process."  McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 
                     
 
1 Aronova does not argue that she was wrongly denied a jury 
trial. 
2 
 
420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995), quoting Planned Parenthood League of 
Mass., Inc. v. Operation Rescue, 406 Mass. 701, 706 (1990).  "We 
review the single justice's denial of relief only to determine 
whether there was an abuse of discretion or an error of law."2  
Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint, 477 Mass. 
1010, 1010 (2017), citing Marides v. Rossi, 446 Mass. 1007, 1007 
(2006).  The single justice neither erred nor abused his 
discretion in this case. 
 
 
"The small claims procedure was designed by the Legislature 
as a 'simple, informal and inexpensive procedure.'  G. L. 
c. 218, § 21. . . . Parties who opt to take advantage of its 
benefits forgo certain rights that they would otherwise have in 
a regular civil case, including the regular rights of appellate 
review."  D.R. Peck Excavating, Inc. v. Machado, 481 Mass. 1033, 
1034 (2019), citing Eresian v. Hall, 442 Mass. 1022, 1023 
(2004).  "[A]fter a small claims case is tried in the District 
Court before a judge or jury, the losing litigant has no right 
to appeal to the Appellate Division."  D.R. Peck Excavating, 
Inc., supra.  A party may ask the judge to report questions of 
law to the Appellate Division, but "[n]o party shall be entitled 
to a report."  Id., quoting G. L. c. 218, § 23.  Moreover, by 
not exercising her right to request a transfer to the regular 
civil docket at the outset, Aronova submitted to the small 
claims process and agreed to this limited appellate option.  
Christopher v. Porter, 450 Mass. 1007, 1009 (2007), quoting 
Eresian, supra.  "We have consistently held that a defendant who 
fails to take that step has no right later to obtain review 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, to replace the appellate rights [she] 
voluntarily relinquishes by going forward under the small claims 
procedure . . . ."  D.R. Peck Excavating, Inc., supra, and cases 
cited. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Margarita Aronova, pro se. 
 
Mostafa Mohamed, pro se. 
                     
 
2 In her brief, Aronova does not present any argument that 
the single justice wrongly denied extraordinary relief, but only 
raises claims of error in the small claims action.  This 
presents a further reason not to disturb the single justice's 
judgment.