Title: Padmanabhan v. Yout

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12266 
 
BHARANIDHARAN PADMANABHAN  vs.  KIMBERLEY YOUT. 
 
 
May 26, 2017. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
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 2013, the respondent, Kimberley Yout, commenced a 
product liability action in the Superior Court against Biogen 
Inc. and Elan Pharmaceuticals, LLC, related to a medication used 
to treat multiple sclerosis.  She subsequently amended her 
complaint to include Padmanabhan, a medical doctor, and his 
company, Scleroplex, Inc., claiming medical malpractice stemming 
from Padmanabhan's treatment of her multiple sclerosis with that 
medication.  Padmanabhan moved to dismiss the claims against 
both him and, purportedly, Scleroplex, on several bases:  that 
venue was improper, that service was improper and ineffective, 
and that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of 
limitations.1  The motion was denied.  Padmanabhan then filed his 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, which the single justice denied 
without a hearing. 
 
                                                 
 
1 As the trial court judge properly noted, although 
Padmanabhan, who is not a lawyer, is free to represent himself, 
he may not represent another person or entity, including 
Scleroplex.  See Varney Enters., Inc. v. WMF, Inc., 402 Mass. 
79, 79 (1988) ("[A] corporation may not be represented in 
judicial proceedings by a corporate officer who is not an 
attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth"). 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
Because the trial court ruling from which Padmanabhan seeks 
relief -- the denial of his motion to dismiss -- is 
interlocutory, Padmanabhan's appeal to this court is subject to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  That rule 
requires an appellant to file a preliminary memorandum and 
appendix showing that "review of the trial court decision cannot 
adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment 
in the trial court or by other available means."  S.J.C. Rule 
2:21 (2).  Padmanabhan has not done so.  Instead of filing a 
preliminary memorandum under the rule, he filed instead a full 
appellate brief.  This failure to comply with the rule defeats 
the purpose of the rule and is basis alone for us to decline to 
disturb the single justice's judgment.  Rasten v. Northeastern 
Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 
(2001).2  More importantly, even in his brief he has not made a 
showing why review of the denial of his motion to dismiss cannot 
adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment 
in the trial court; he has not, in fact, even addressed the 
issue. 
 
 
This court's extraordinary power of general superintendence 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not a shortcut for the normal 
process of trial and appeal.  See Foley v. Lowell Div. of the 
Dist. Court Dep't, 398 Mass. 800, 802 (1986) ("Where a 
petitioner can raise his claim in the normal course of trial and 
appeal, relief will be denied").  All of the claims Padmanabhan 
raised in his petition in this case are remediable in the normal 
course.  The single justice therefore did not err or abuse his 
discretion in denying the petition. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, pro se. 
 
Kimberly A. Dougherty for the respondent. 
                                                 
 
2 This is not the first time that Padmanabhan has appealed 
to this court from the denial of a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition 
and failed to pursue the appeal pursuant to the applicable 
rules.  See Padmanabhan v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Servs., 476 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2017).