Title: Bishay v. Clerk of the Superior Court in Norfolk County
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12153
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: January 23, 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12153 
 
BAHIG BISHAY & others1  vs.  CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IN 
NORFOLK COUNTY. 
 
 
January 23, 2017. 
 
 
Mandamus.  Clerk of Court.  Judgment, Implementing settlement 
agreement.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, 
Entry of judgment. 
 
 
 
Bahig Bishay commenced an action in the Superior Court, 
bringing various claims against National Investigations, Inc., 
and its principals, Glenn Gillis and Garry Gillis (collectively, 
National); Harvard 45 Associates, LLC, and its principals, 
Harold Brown and Enrique Darer (collectively, Harvard); and 
Allied Finance Adjusters Conference, Inc. (Allied), arising from 
Bishay's eviction from his home.  More particularly, Bishay 
sought damages on various theories for the removal and storage 
of his personal property in the course of the eviction.  
Allied's motion to dismiss the claims against it was allowed, as 
was Harvard's motion for summary judgment as to both the claims 
against it and a counterclaim it asserted against Bishay.  
Bishay and National thereafter reported that they settled their 
dispute, and they moved for entry of final judgment.  Harvard 
and Allied opposed the motion, and a judge in the Superior Court 
denied it.  Bishay again moved for entry of final judgment.  
Harvard and Allied opposed that motion, and a different judge 
denied it.  Bishay and National (collectively, petitioners) 
jointly filed a petition in the county court seeking relief in 
the nature of mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and G. L. 
c. 249, § 4, specifically requesting that the clerk of the 
Superior Court be ordered to enter final judgment as the 
                     
 
1 National Investigations, Inc.; Glenn Gillis; and Garry 
Gillis. 
2 
 
 
petitioners proposed.  Harvard moved to intervene and filed an 
opposition, joined by Allied, in which it argued that the 
proposed judgment was collusive and fictitious, adverse to the 
interests of Harvard and Allied, and contrary to the prior 
ruling on summary judgment.2  A single justice of this court 
denied relief without a hearing.  The petitioners appeal. 
 
 
The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires the petitioners 
to "set forth the reasons why 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."3  The 
petitioners have not done so.  They argue that requiring them to 
proceed to a jury trial would be wasteful in these 
circumstances, as they have in fact resolved their dispute.4  
This argument is unavailing, as it "fails to address why the 
substantive error allegedly committed by the [Superior Court 
judges] cannot be remedied on appeal."  DiBiase v. DiBiase, 423 
Mass. 1003, 1003 (1996).  Moreover, the petitioners had another 
remedy available to them, which their memorandum fails to 
mention:  they could have filed a petition for relief pursuant 
to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par.  See Greco v. Plymouth Sav. 
Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under c. 231, § 118, 
would suffice").  The single justice neither erred nor abused 
her discretion by denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
                     
 
2 We express no view on the merits of this claim. 
 
 
3 The rule also provides that "[t]he appeal shall be 
presented . . . on the papers filed in the single justice 
session" and that the petitioners must file a record appendix.  
S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  The petitioners have not complied with 
this requirement.  This presents a further reason not to disturb 
the judgment of the single justice. 
 
 
4 The petitioners also argue that the Superior Court judges 
wrongly refused to enter final judgment and that Harvard and 
Allied lack standing to object to it.  These arguments go to the 
merits of the decision and not to the availability of an 
adequate alternative remedy.  They are thus beyond the scope of 
rule 2:21. 
3 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on papers filed, accompanied by a 
memorandum of law. 
 
Bahig F. Bishay, pro se. 
 
Robert E. Kelley for National Investigations, Inc., & 
others.