Title: Montanez v. Flahive
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12796
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: February 24, 2020

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12796 
 
IVELISSE MONTANEZ  vs.  NANCY FLAHIVE. 
 
 
February 24, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Appeal, Requests for findings and rulings. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Ivelisse Montanez, filed a petition in the 
county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking an order 
requiring a single justice of the Appeals Court to state 
findings and more detailed reasons for denying a prior petition 
for interlocutory review that she had filed pursuant to G. L. 
c. 231, § 118, first par., in the Appeals Court.1  A single 
justice of this court denied the petition.  We affirm. 
 
 
"[T]he extraordinary remedy of general superintendence is 
meant for situations where a litigant has no adequate 
alternative remedy."  McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 178, 
185 (2008).  At bottom, the petitioner sought interlocutory 
review from a single justice of the Appeals Court of various 
orders in a civil action that had been commenced by her, and 
which was then pending, in the Superior Court.  She pursued the 
legislatively prescribed avenue for seeking review of 
                                                          
 
 
1 Although the petitioner claims that certain interlocutory 
rulings of the Superior Court are erroneous, the relief 
requested in the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition was an order 
requiring the Appeals Court to address the issues presented for 
interlocutory review, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118.  In that 
circumstance, S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 
(2001), does not apply.  See G.G. v. L.R., 478 Mass. 1022, 1023 
(2018).  Contrast Picciotto v. Zabin, 433 Mass. 1006, 1007 n.3 
(2001) (where "focus of the petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is 
on the action of the trial court," rule 2:21 applies). 
2 
 
interlocutory orders, see G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., by 
filing a petition in the Appeals Court.  See Guzzi v. Secretary 
of Pub. Safety, 450 Mass. 1016, 1016 (2007); Greco v. Plymouth 
Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under [G. L.] c. 231, 
§ 118, would suffice").  The Appeals Court single justice denied 
the petition, concluding that "the petitioner has not 
demonstrated a clear error of law or abuse of discretion on the 
part of the Superior Court judge."  Whether directly or 
indirectly, by means of seeking to compel a further explanation 
for the Appeals Court single justice's order, the petitioner is 
not entitled as a matter of right to further review of that 
order pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.2  See Carista v. Berkshire 
Mut. Ins. Co., 394 Mass. 1009, 1009-1010 (1985).  "Although 
[her] petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, was denied, 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not provide a second opportunity as a 
matter of right for interlocutory relief," Guzzi, supra at 1016, 
irrespective of whether it is couched as review of the adequacy 
of the order denying the G. L. c. 231, § 118, petition or as 
review of the underlying Superior Court orders. 
 
 
Moreover, the court's extraordinary superintendence power 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, "should be exercised only in 
exceptional circumstances, when necessary to protect substantive 
rights."  Cappadona v. Riverside 400 Function Room, Inc., 372 
Mass. 167, 169 (1977), quoting Healy v. First Dist. Court of 
Bristol, 367 Mass. 909, 909 (1975).  Such circumstances are not 
                                                          
 
 
2 Relying primarily on Commonwealth v. Grassie, 476 Mass. 
202 n.12 (2017), the petitioner claims that the Appeals Court 
single justice was required to provide findings and a detailed 
explanation for his ruling denying the G. L. c. 231, § 118, 
petition.  That is incorrect.  Grassie involved a direct appeal 
from a conviction of murder in the second degree and from an 
order of the trial judge denying a motion to reduce the verdict 
in accordance with Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 (b) (2), as amended, 420 
Mass. 1502 (1995).  It did not involve an interlocutory ruling 
on a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., and 
the reasons for our holding in that case are inapplicable here.  
We have never held, nor has the Appeals Court held, that a 
single justice of the Appeals Court is obligated to make 
findings and give a detailed explanation of his or her reasons 
on an interlocutory petition under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first 
par.  Cf. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 477 Mass. 1008, 1009 n.2 
(2017) (reliance on Grassie misplaced on appeal of "a final and 
unreviewable decision of the gatekeeper pursuant to G. L. 
c. 278, § 33E"). 
3 
 
present here, because the petitioner will have an opportunity to 
pursue her claims at trial, and if she is unsuccessful at trial, 
she can challenge the various orders of the trial court on 
appeal.  See Guzzi, 450 Mass. at 1016; Carista, 394 Mass. at 
1010.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Greg T. Schubert for the petitioner. 
 
Aaron R. White for the respondent. 
                                                          
 
 
3 We need not, and therefore do not, consider any arguments 
and requests for relief asserted by the petitioner that were not 
made before the single justice in the county court, whose ruling 
is the matter before us.  In the county court, the petitioner 
expressly indicated that "the only relief sought by the 
petitioner" was a remand to the Appeals Court for a "decision" 
on the issues for which she sought interlocutory review.