Title: Leavitt v. Phillips
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12122
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: November 6, 2017

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12122 
 
ALLAN M. LEAVITT  vs.  CYNTHIA A. PHILLIPS & others.1 
 
 
November 6, 2017. 
 
 
Mandamus.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus. 
 
 
 
Allan M. Leavitt appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief in the 
nature of mandamus.  We affirm. 
 
 
Leavitt, the plaintiff in a civil action in the Superior 
Court arising from an automobile accident, sought an order 
directing the clerk of the Superior Court to assemble the record 
for appeal.  At that time, Leavitt's claims had been tried to a 
jury, but final judgment had not yet entered, and certain 
posttrial motions were pending.  The single justice rightly 
denied relief on the ground that the request was premature.2 
 
 
In addition, Leavitt moved for the recusal of justices of 
this court and the Appeals Court.  This motion was based on 
Leavitt's apparent belief that improper ex parte communications 
had occurred.3  He did not identify by name any particular 
                     
 
1 Melissa Aebersold, The Commerce Insurance Company, GEICO 
Insurance Company, and United Services Automobile Association. 
 
 
2 A final judgment has since entered in the Superior Court, 
and Leavitt has filed a notice of appeal.  We trust that the 
record will be assembled and that Leavitt's appeal will proceed 
in the usual course. 
 
 
3 Leavitt is represented by counsel in this matter.  The 
papers filed by counsel in both the county court and the full 
court are replete with allegations of judicial misconduct and 
 
 
justice who he believed should be recused, nor did he offer any 
evidence that recusal was warranted.  The single justice 
properly denied this motion, as Leavitt demonstrated no basis in 
law or fact for the recusal of any justice. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
 
William J. Ruotolo for the petitioner. 
                                                                  
even criminal offenses.  Two of the respondents requested that 
the single justice impose sanctions, including sanctions under 
Mass. R. Civ. P. 11, as amended, 456 Mass. 1401 (2010).  The 
single justice denied these requests, and the respondents have 
neither appealed nor requested that we impose sanctions.  At 
this juncture, we take this opportunity to remind counsel, going 
forward, to consider his professional obligations and the 
consequences that can ensue, not only under rule 11 and like 
court rules but also under the Massachusetts Rules of 
Professional Conduct, if they are violated.