Title: Linardon v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12940 
 
KELECHI LINARDON  vs.  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT & another.1 
 
 
July 31, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Appeal from order of single justice.  
Contempt.  Practice, Civil, Contempt. 
 
 
 
The plaintiff, Kelechi Linardon, filed a complaint in the 
county court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and 
damages against the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) and the 
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 
based on a claim of discrimination in housing on account of her 
disability and race.  She alleged violation of several Federal 
and State statutes and constitutional provisions.  The single 
justice transferred the complaint to the Superior Court.  See 
G. L. c. 211, § 4A. 
 
 
The Superior Court docket indicates that, shortly after the 
case was entered there, HUD filed a notice of removal in the 
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 
see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1446; the case was then removed to the 
Federal court; and further proceedings in the Superior Court 
were stayed accordingly.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (State court 
"shall proceed no further" with case after procedural 
requirements for removal have been satisfied).  Thereafter, the 
Federal court dismissed the claims against HUD and remanded the 
claims against the BHA to the Superior Court. 
 
 
While the case was pending in the Federal court, before 
being sent back to the Superior Court, the plaintiff filed a 
motion in the county court asking the single justice to find the 
                                                          
 
 
1 Boston Housing Authority. 
2 
 
 
 
defendants and the Superior Court in contempt of the G. L. 
c. 211, § 4A, transfer order.  The single justice denied that 
motion without a hearing, and the plaintiff appealed from that 
ruling.  The sole, very limited question before us, therefore, 
is the correctness of the single justice's order denying the 
motion for contempt.2 
 
 
There was no error or abuse of discretion in the single 
justice's order.  To hold a party in contempt, "there must be a 
clear and unequivocal command and an equally clear and undoubted 
disobedience."  Parker v. Commonwealth, 448 Mass. 1021, 1022 
(2007), quoting Nickerson v. Dowd, 342 Mass. 462, 464 (1961).  
In assessing whether that has occurred, we "look[] to the 
precise words of the order itself."  Parker, supra, quoting 
Newell v. Department of Mental Retardation, 446 Mass. 286, 305, 
cert. denied, 549 U.S. 823 (2006).  The single justice's initial 
order merely transferred the complaint to the Superior Court.  
We do not read it as being intended to mean that the case could 
not thereafter be removed to the Federal court -- indeed, it is 
doubtful the single justice would have had the authority so to 
order -- or to mean, as has since happened, that the case could 
not later be transferred to the Housing Court.  In short, the 
single justice's order was not a "clear and unequivocal command" 
that the case could be decided by the Superior Court and the 
Superior Court only. 
 
 
HUD did not act improperly when, after the transfer of the 
case to the Superior Court, it exercised its right to remove the 
case to Federal court.3  And, once the procedural steps predicate 
to the removal were complete, the Superior Court had no 
jurisdiction to proceed further.  See Hyde Park Partners, L.P. 
v. Connolly, 839 F.2d 837, 842 (1st Cir. 1988), citing Steamship 
Co. v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118, 122 (1882).  When a case is removed 
to Federal court, the jurisdiction of the State court 
                                                          
 
 
2 The plaintiff has asked for a hearing, which we take to 
mean an oral argument, before the full court.  That request is 
denied.  Having reviewed her brief and the record appendix, we 
decide this case without oral argument as we have done with 
several other cases recently in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
 
3 Likewise, the BHA did not violate the single justice's 
order when, following the Federal court's remand of the case to 
the Superior Court, it sought to have the case transferred to 
the Housing Court.  See G. L. c. 185C, §§ 3, 20.  The single 
justice's order did not clearly and unequivocally preclude that 
course. 
3 
 
 
 
"absolutely cease[s]," and that of the Federal court 
"immediately attache[s]."  Steamship Co., supra.  See Garden 
Homes, Inc. v. District Court of Somerville, 336 Mass. 432, 435 
(1957).  The removal thus effectively disposed of the case in 
the Superior Court, and the Superior Court cannot be faulted for 
not proceeding further with it.  In short, there was no basis 
for finding a contempt in these circumstances. 
 
 
While the plaintiff's appellate brief continues to press 
the discrimination and civil rights claims she raised in her 
underlying complaint, those claims are not properly before us at 
this juncture, and we therefore express no view on them.  As 
stated, the only question properly before us with the case in 
this posture is the correctness of the denial of the motion for 
contempt.  As to that, there was no error or abuse of 
discretion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Order denying motion for 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  contempt affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Kelechi Linardon, pro se. 
 
Michael J. Louis & Angela Marcolina for Boston Housing 
Authority.