Title: Prince v. Obelisk, Inc.

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12801 
 
JARID PRINCE  vs.  OBELISK, INC., & another.1 
 
 
February 11, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Small claims procedure. 
 
 
 
Jarid Prince appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, in which he sought relief from a judgment entered 
in a small claims case in the Boston Municipal Court.  In that 
case, Prince alleged that the defendants, Obelisk, Inc., and 
Nebulous, Inc., violated G. L. c. 93A by overcharging him for 
certain computing devices and by substituting devices of 
inferior quality.  After a hearing, the clerk-magistrate entered 
judgment for the defendants, finding that Prince had not proved 
that they were responsible for the damages he claimed.  Prince's 
motion for reconsideration was denied, and it appears that the 
clerk-magistrate has not acted on his subsequent postjudgment 
motions.  We affirm the judgment of the county court. 
 
 
"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 
                     
 
1 Nebulous, Inc. 
 
2 
 
 
(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").  
Prince argues that the clerk-magistrate should have made 
detailed findings.  However, nothing in the statutes or rules 
governing small claims procedures requires the clerk-magistrate 
to do so.  By choosing to proceed in the small claims session 
rather than commencing an ordinary civil action or requesting a 
transfer to the regular civil docket, Prince submitted to the 
"simple, informal and inexpensive" small claims 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 . . . ."  D.R. Peck Excavating, Inc. v. 
Machado, 481 Mass. 1033, 1034 (2019). 
 
 
The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion 
by denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Jarid Prince, pro se.