Title: Waters v. Kearney

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13328 
 
RIAN WATERS  vs.  AIDAN KEARNEY. 
 
 
November 3, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Moot Question.  Practice, Civil, Moot case. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Rian Waters, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court dismissing as moot his petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
Waters commenced an action against the respondent, Aidan 
Kearney, and several other parties in the trial court in May 
2018, alleging claims of, among other things, libel, slander, 
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.  After 
various proceedings in both the trial court and the Appeals 
Court, the only remaining claim was one of libel against 
Kearney.  In August 2022, shortly before a scheduled pretrial 
conference in the trial court, Waters filed his petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in which he asked the court to 
sanction Kearney (by "reaching and applying" Kearney's "ghost 
company's" assets); detain Kearney for criminal contempt (until 
he transfers his assets to Waters); and to hold an evidentiary 
hearing, order the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing, 
or appoint a "private prosecutor" to investigate obstruction.  
While the petition was pending, a judge in the trial court 
dismissed without prejudice the underlying case for failure to 
prosecute.  On that basis, the single justice then dismissed 
Waters's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition as moot. 
 
 
Waters 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, rule 2:21 
does not apply in this situation because Waters is not 
2 
 
challenging any interlocutory rulings of the trial court.  It is 
nonetheless clear that he is not entitled to relief in this 
court.  Waters argues, in his memorandum, that the case is not 
moot on the basis that -– his argument seems to be -– he has 
appealed from the dismissal of the case in the trial court.  
Where the issues that Waters raised in his petition relate 
specifically to that underlying case, however, the dismissal of 
that case consequentially renders those issues moot, regardless 
of whether Waters appeals from the judgment of dismissal.  If 
Waters believes that the issues raised in his G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition relate in any way to the trial court's decision to 
dismiss the case, he is free to raise those issues in his appeal 
from that dismissal.  The single justice did not err or abuse 
his discretion in dismissing the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition on 
the basis that it was moot.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Rian Waters, pro se. 
 
 
1 In light of this decision, we need not act on Waters's 
motion to consolidate this case with his appeal from the 
judgment of dismissal.