Title: Taylor-Cameron v. Walcott

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12532 
 
DEYDANIA TAYLOR-CAMERON  vs.  JANELLE WALCOTT. 
 
 
 
February 21, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
District Court, Small claims procedure.  Practice, Civil, 
Small claims procedure, Appeal. 
 
 
 
Deydania Taylor-Cameron appeals from a judgment of the 
county court denying, without a hearing, her petition for relief 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Taylor-Cameron was the plaintiff in 
two actions against Janelle Walcott in the small claims session 
of the District Court.  The clerk-magistrate offered to 
consolidate the two cases and transfer them to the regular civil 
docket.1  Taylor-Cameron responded that she preferred to dismiss 
one action and proceed solely on the other.  The clerk-
magistrate repeatedly advised her that if she did so, the case 
would be dismissed with prejudice, and she would not be 
permitted to bring the same claims again.  Taylor-Cameron stated 
that she understood, and she voluntarily dismissed that action.  
In the surviving action, after a hearing before a clerk-
magistrate, she prevailed and was awarded single damages on her 
claim that Walcott violated the security deposit statute.  
Apparently unsatisfied with this result, Taylor-Cameron 
unsuccessfully filed motions seeking reconsideration in both 
cases.  Taylor-Cameron's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition followed.  
We affirm. 
 
                     
 
1 It appears that the clerk-magistrate offered to do so 
because the two cases combined exceeded the limit for small 
claims actions. 
2 
 
 
"We review the single justice's denial of relief only to 
determine whether there was an abuse of discretion or an error 
of law."  Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint, 477 
Mass. 1010, 1010 (2017), citing Marides v. Rossi, 446 Mass. 
1007, 1007 (2006).  "We have repeatedly stated that a plaintiff 
who chooses to proceed in the small claims session waives the 
right to appeal from any adverse judgment, and likewise is not 
entitled to invoke this court's extraordinary power of general 
superintendence in lieu of an appeal to compel review of the 
judgment."  Zullo v. Culik Law P.C., 467 Mass. 1009, 1009 
(2014), and cases cited.  See G. L. c. 218, § 23 ("A plaintiff 
beginning a cause under the [small claims] procedure shall be 
deemed to have waived a trial by jury and any right of appeal to 
a jury of six session in the district court department").  Where 
Taylor-Cameron chose to pursue the "simple, informal and 
inexpensive" small claims procedure, G. L. c. 218, § 21, the 
single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by 
denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Deydania Taylor-Cameron, pro se. 
 
Richard M. Mucci for the defendant.