Court Opinion

ID: 9378496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 17:08:24.438267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.622624
License: Public Domain

March 10, 2023

                                                         Supreme Court

          Dean Pinelli et al.           :

                  v.                    :                No. 2021-303-Appeal.
                                                         (PC 20-7791)
        Thomas Mercurio et al.          :

           Elena Massarone              :

                  v.                    :               No. 2021-330-Appeal.
                                                        (PC 20-6806)
          Dean Pinelli et al.           :

          Dean Pinelli et al.           :

                  v.                    :               No. 2021-331-Appeal.
                                                        (PC 20-7791)
        Thomas Mercurio et al.          :

           NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
           before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
           are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
           Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
           Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 222-3258 or Email
           opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov of any typographical or
           other formal errors in order that corrections may be made
           before the opinion is published.
                                                            Supreme Court

            Dean Pinelli et al.            :

                    v.                     :                No. 2021-303-Appeal.
                                                            (PC 20-7791)
         Thomas Mercurio et al.            :

            Elena Massarone                :

                    v.                     :                No. 2021-330-Appeal.
                                                            (PC 20-6806)
            Dean Pinelli et al.            :

            Dean Pinelli et al.            :

                    v.                     :                No. 2021-331-Appeal.
                                                            (PC 20-7791)
         Thomas Mercurio et al.            :

         Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Lynch Prata, JJ.

                                   OPINION

      Justice Lynch Prata, for the Court. This opinion concerns three related but

unconsolidated appeals that came before the Supreme Court pursuant to orders

directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in these appeals

should not be summarily decided. In No. 2021-303-A and No. 2021-331-A, the

defendants, Thomas Mercurio (Thomas) and John Mercurio (John) (collectively, the

                                        -1-
Mercurios), appeal pro se from a Superior Court order granting the plaintiffs’, Dean

Pinelli (Dean) and Melissa Pinelli (Melissa) (collectively, the Pinellis), motion to

adjudge the Mercurios in civil contempt. Similarly, in No. 2021-330-A, the plaintiff,

Elena Massarone (Elena), appeals pro se from an identical Superior Court order

granting the Pinellis’ motion to adjudge Elena in civil contempt. 1 Following oral

argument, we determined that these appeals should be consolidated for purposes of

this opinion.    After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and

reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that these cases

may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth

herein, we affirm the orders of the Superior Court.

      In PC 20-6806, Elena filed a complaint pro se in Providence County Superior

Court on September 28, 2020, naming the Pinellis as defendants and seeking

injunctive relief. A preliminary injunction was entered on October 9, 2020, which

restrained Elena and the Pinellis from harassing, interfering with, molesting, or

threatening each other directly or indirectly, in any manner. Following entry of this

preliminary injunction, Elena filed a motion to adjudge Dean in contempt.

1
  These three related appeals arise from two related but unconsolidated lower court
cases involving a neighborhood dispute between two families: the Pinellis and the
Mercurios/Massarones. In PC 20-7791, the Pinellis filed suit against the Mercurios
seeking injunctive relief, and in PC 20-6808, Elena filed suit against the Pinellis,
similarly seeking injunctive relief. For purposes of clarity, all parties will be referred
to by their first names. No disrespect is intended.
                                          -2-
According to the Superior Court docket, various hearings were held over the next

several months, with orders entered subsequent to each hearing enjoining the parties

from harassing, interfering with, or threatening each other.

      The Pinellis thereafter filed a motion to adjudge Elena in contempt, which was

followed by another motion by Elena to adjudge the Pinellis in contempt.

After several days of hearings on the complaint for injunction, an order was entered

on May 12, 2021, issuing a three-year injunction further restraining Elena, Dean,

and the Pinellis’ minor son from harassing each other. All pending motions to

adjudge in contempt filed by both parties were either denied or passed. The order

stated specifically that “[t]he entry of this order is a fresh start for the parties and it

is against this order that the parties’ conduct will be evaluated.” A little more than

a week later, Elena filed yet another motion to adjudge Dean in contempt. The

Pinellis responded in kind. Hearings on these motions, as well as on several other

outstanding motions, were held on July 14 and July 15, 2021, August 25, 2021, and

September 7, 2021. Ultimately, an order was entered on November 15, 2021,

granting Elena’s motion to adjudge the Pinellis in contempt in part and granting the

Pinellis’ motion to adjudge Elena in contempt, which Elena timely appealed.2

Elena has not provided transcripts of any of these hearings to the Court.

2
  The Pinellis have not appealed the order adjudging them in contempt, and it was
represented at oral argument that they have paid the fine associated therewith.
                                        -3-
         In PC 20-7791, the Pinellis filed a complaint pro se in Providence County

Superior Court on November 6, 2020, naming the Mercurios as defendants and

seeking injunctive relief. 3    The Pinellis sought a restraining order against the

Mercurios due to “constant harassment, threats, intimidation and stalking[.]”

After temporary restraining orders were entered against the Mercurios, hearings on

the preliminary injunction were held on May 10, 2021, and June 17, 2021. On July

13, 2021, a three-year injunction issued as to both the Pinellis, including their minor

son, and the Mercurios, preventing the parties from harassing, interfering with, or

molesting each other either directly or indirectly. The parties each filed numerous

motions to adjudge one another in contempt. Ultimately, a single order was entered

on November 15, 2021, denying the Mercurios’ motion to adjudge the Pinellis in

contempt and granting the Pinellis’ motion to adjudge the Mercurios in contempt,

which was identical to the November 15, 2021 order entered in PC 20-6806.

Thereafter, Thomas and John each filed timely notices of appeal. Like Elena, the

Mercurios failed to provide transcripts from any of these hearings to the Court.

         In the two identical November 15, 2021 orders, the trial justice found that all

of the parties involved in the two related cases were in contempt “to the different

degrees and extents stated on the record on November 15, 2021.” According to the

trial justice, no evidence had been presented at the hearings in these cases to indicate

3
    The Pinellis obtained counsel soon after filing their complaint pro se.
                                          -4-
that the parties could not comply with the orders. With respect to the Pinellis, the

trial justice concluded that, although the Pinellis had been “substantially diligent in

complying with the orders, at times despite great provocation by the

Massarone/Mercurio family[,]” the Pinellis had posted materials relating to this

dispute on the internet. The trial justice referred to this violation by the Pinellis as a

technical one because the “internet post was not directed toward the Massarone and

Mercurio parties and was not inflammatory.”

      As for Elena and the Mercurios, the trial justice found that they had

“failed spectacularly at complying with” orders issued by the Superior Court and

had “deliberately and repeatedly violated the orders and continue[d] to

engage in harassing conduct toward the Pinellis in a number of ways.” The trial

justice concluded that Elena and the Mercurios’ conduct demonstrated an

“utter disregard for the authority of the [c]ourt, despite several orders

addressing their conduct and numerous admonitions from the bench about

their conduct at many court appearances.”

      Based on these findings, the trial justice ordered Elena to enroll in an anger-

management course and to obtain a certificate of completion from the instructor no

later than April 15, 2022. Elena was also ordered to pay a portion of the Pinellis’

attorneys’ fees for certain proceedings. The Pinellis, on the other hand, were ordered

to pay a $300 sanction to the Superior Court registry. The trial justice similarly

                                          -5-
directed the Mercurios to complete an anger-management course and obtain a

certificate of completion no later than April 15, 2022. The trial justice further

ordered the Mercurios to pay a portion of the Pinellis’ attorneys’ fees for certain

proceedings.

      On appeal, Elena and the Mercurios both assert largely identical claims of

error. Broadly speaking, Elena, Thomas, and John all claim that the trial justice

erred: (1) in overlooking certain evidence; (2) in ordering Elena and the Mercurios to

attend anger-management treatment; (3) in finding the Pinellis credible; (4)

in wrongfully excluding certain videotaped evidence; (5) in showing bias

towards Elena and the Mercurios; (6) by violating Elena and the Mercurios’

freedom of speech; and (7) in consolidating the underlying cases. 4         As noted

above, however, neither Elena nor the Mercurios have provided transcripts to

the Court from any of the numerous hearings held throughout the course of

these proceedings. Therefore, there is no way for this Court to determine what

objections Elena and the Mercurios may have made or what claims have been

preserved for appeal.

4
  There is nothing contained in the record to indicate that the underlying cases were
consolidated. However, the November 15, 2021 orders that are the subject of the
instant appeals note that the hearings on the parties’ numerous contempt motions
were consolidated for judicial efficiency and to conserve the parties’ resources.
                                        -6-
      We have made clear that “the deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal

without providing the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court is

risky business.” Palange v. Palange, 243 A.3d 783, 784 (R.I. 2021) (mem.) (brackets

omitted) (quoting Bailey v. Saunders, 151 A.3d 764, 764 (R.I. 2017) (mem.)).

Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure requires

an appellant to “order from the reporter a transcript of such parts of the proceedings

not already on file as the appellant deems necessary for inclusion in the record.” Id.

(quoting Art. I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules). Similarly, Article I,

Rule 11(a) requires an appellant to provide to the Supreme Court “the record on

appeal, including the transcript necessary for the determination of the appeal, * * *

within sixty (60) days after the filing of the notice of appeal * * *.” Art. I, Rule 11(a)

(emphasis added); Procopio v. PRM Concrete Corp., 711 A.2d 650, 651 (R.I. 1998)

(mem.) (“[Rule 11] clearly places a duty on an appellant to ensure that the record is

complete and ready for transmission.”); see Art. I, Rule 11(b) (“When the record is

complete for purposes of the appeal, the clerk of the trial court shall transmit it to

the Clerk of the Supreme Court.”). This Court has consistently stated that the failure

to provide transcripts “precludes a meaningful review and leaves us no alternative

but to deny the appeal and uphold the trial justice’s findings.” Palange, 243 A.3d at

784 (quoting Calise v. Curtin, 900 A.2d 1164, 1169 (R.I. 2006)).

                                          -7-
      In the instant case, Elena and the Mercurios have alleged a variety of

errors relative to the admissibility of evidence and credibility determinations made

by the trial justice, but have provided no transcripts for this Court to review.

This failure on the part of Elena and the Mercurios is not merely risky business, it is

fatal to their appeals. Because we have no transcripts, our review is therefore limited

to the orders themselves. In light of the findings made by the trial justice, we

determine the November 15, 2021 orders to be well-balanced and judicious. In fact,

the trial justice even noted the disparity in representation among the parties in the

November 15, 2021 orders. We have often stated that, although “pro se litigants are

often granted greater latitude by the court,” they are not exempt from our rules.

Terzian v. Lombardi, 180 A.3d 555, 558-59 (R.I. 2018) (brackets omitted)

(quoting Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580, 585 (R.I. 2005)).

      Additionally, although Elena, Thomas, and John each filed Rule 12A

statements listing several claims of error on the part of the trial justice, the statements

fail entirely to provide any cogent legal analysis or substantive discussion of their

claims. “The Court ‘deems an issue waived when a party simply states an issue for

appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof.’” Palange, 243 A.3d at

785 (quoting Broccoli v. Manning, 208 A.3d 1146, 1149 (R.I. 2019)). We “will

not search the record to substantiate that which a party alleges.” Id. (quoting

Giammarco v. Giammarco, 151 A.3d 1220, 1222 (R.I. 2017)).

                                           -8-
      Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the Superior Court. The record may be

returned to the Superior Court.

      Justice Long did not participate.

                                          -9-
                                              STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
                                         SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
                                               Licht Judicial Complex
                                                 250 Benefit Street
                                               Providence, RI 02903

                                     OPINION COVER SHEET

                                         Dean Pinelli et al. v. Thomas Mercurio et al.

Title of Case                            Elena Massarone v. Dean Pinelli et al.

                                         Dean Pinelli et al. v. Thomas Mercurio et al.
                                         No. 2021-303-Appeal.
                                         (PC 20-7791)

                                         No. 2021-330-Appeal.
Case Number
                                         (PC 20-6806)

                                         No. 2021-331-Appeal.
                                         (PC 20-7791)

Date Opinion Filed                       March 10, 2023

Justices                                 Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Lynch Prata, JJ.

Written By                               Associate Justice Erin Lynch Prata

Source of Appeal                         Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court        Associate Justice Melissa E. Darigan

                                         For Plaintiffs:

                                         James R. McNelis, Esq.
                                         Elena Massarone, Pro Se (No. 2021-330-Appeal.)
Attorney(s) on Appeal                    For Defendants:

                                         Thomas Mercurio, Pro Se
                                         John Mercurio, Pro Se
                                         James R. McNelis, Esq. (No. 2021-330-Appeal.)

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)