Supreme Court

No. 2017-65-Appeal.

(PC 16-5506)

Marsha Jacavone :

v. :

Donald Coletti et al. :

O R D E R

The plaintiff, Marsha Jacavone, appeals from a Superior Court order denying her request 

for injunctive relief against the defendant, Donald Coletti. In November 2016, the plaintiff filed 

a complaint seeking injunctive relief to prevent being evicted from her home. In the complaint, 

she named two defendants, but served only one with process, Donald Coletti. The plaintiff 

obtained a temporary restraining order against the defendant to stay the eviction, but, after a 

hearing, her request for a preliminary injunction was denied by a justice of the Superior Court. 

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff’s temporary restraining order was dissolved and her case against 

the defendant was dismissed, apparently on the ground that injunctive relief against the 

defendant, who was a real estate broker for Federal National Mortgage Association, was futile. 

In other words, the justice reasoned that an injunction against Coletti would have no impact on 

any eviction because he had no ownership interest in the property and was not the party seeking 

eviction. The plaintiff timely appealed to this Court. 

The plaintiff, who appears pro se, has provided this Court with two filings pursuant to 

Article I, Rule 12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure: a statement of the case 

- 1 -
and a supplemental statement. However, nowhere in those filings does the plaintiff articulate 

any legal error with respect to the hearing justice’s denial of her request for injunctive relief. See 

McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 131 A.3d 175, 176 (R.I. 2016) (mem.); see also 

Article I, Rule 16(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure (stating in relevant part 

that “[t]he brief shall contain * * * a specification of the errors claimed” and that “[e]rrors not 

claimed, questions not raised and points not made ordinarily will be treated as waived and not be 

considered by the Court”). As we have explained, “[s]imply stating an issue for appellate 

review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the 

Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.” 

Giddings v. Arpin, 160 A.3d 314, 316 (R.I. 2017) (mem.) (quoting Giammarco v. Giammarco, 

151 A.3d 1220, 1222 (R.I. 2017)). The plaintiff’s failure to “direct[] our attention with 

specificity to any error that [s]he alleges has been committed” is fatal to her appeal. Id. (quoting 

Nuzzo v. Nuzzo Campion Stone Enterprises, Inc., 137 A.3d 175, 176 (R.I. 2016)). 

Accordingly, because injunctive relief against the defendant would be futile, and without 

any articulable points of error before this Court, we must affirm the order of the Superior Court 

denying the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. The papers shall be returned to that court. 

Entered as an Order of this Court this 10th day of April, 2018. 

 By Order,

 _____________/s/____________

 Clerk

 

 

- 2 -
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Marsha Jacavone v. Donald Coletti et al.

Case Number No. 2017-65-Appeal.

(PC 16-5506)

Date Order Filed April 10, 2018

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and 

Indeglia, JJ. 

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer From Lower Court Associate Justice Richard A. Licht

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Plaintiff: 

Marsha Jacavone, Pro Se

For Defendants: 

Scott C. Owens, Esq.

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2016)