Court Opinion

ID: 9397027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 14:06:59.816476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.084100
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  22-P-470

                                ELAINE M. SHEA

                                       vs.

         MASSACHUSETTS TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM & another.1

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

        After more than fifty years of teaching in both private and

 public schools, the plaintiff retired.           Her work as a public

 school teacher entitled her to certain retirement benefits,

 including the ability, under certain circumstances, to "buy

 back" service rendered at nonpublic schools for credit towards

 the public school retirement benefit.           See G. L. c. 32, §§ 1-

 28A.   The plaintiff applied to the Massachusetts Teachers'

 Retirement System to purchase credits towards her retirement

 from the time that she worked as a private school teacher in the

 employ of the Archdiocese of Boston, beginning in 1970.2               The

 1 Contributory Retirement Appeal Board.
 2 In her papers, the plaintiff references service from 1970 to
 2000. The teachers' retirement board references service from
 September 1970 to June 1973.
teachers' retirement system denied her request, determining that

this service was not creditable because she was eligible for

social security benefits during the service.    See G. L. c. 32,

§ 3 (4A) (no credit allowed for service if employee entitled to

retirement allowance by Federal government); Rosing v. Teachers'

Retirement System, 458 Mass. 283, 285 n.5 (2010) (G. L. c. 32,

§ 3 [4A] governs purchase of nonpublic school service prior to

1973).

    The plaintiff appealed the denial, which was assigned to

the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (division).     In

response to the division's order to show cause why her appeal

should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, the plaintiff did not dispute that she

was eligible for social security benefits with respect to her

private school employment (which made that service

noncreditable); however, she additionally referenced G. L.

c. 32, § 4 (1) (p), as a source of her entitlement.     The

division issued a dismissal on summary disposition, noting that

the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that "the tuition of

all such pupils taught [while she worked for the Archdiocese of

Boston] was financed in part or in full by the commonwealth" as

required by G. L. c. 32, § 4 (1) (p).     The plaintiff further

appealed to the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (board),

which affirmed the division's decision.

                                2
    The plaintiff then sought Superior Court review of the

board's decision.   In April 2021, the board served and filed the

administrative record in answer to the complaint.    The plaintiff

was to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings within thirty

days of service of the administrative record.    See Superior

Court Standing Order 1-96.    Having received no response from the

plaintiff, on January 25, 2022, the court issued a "Notice of

Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution of G. L. c. 30A Appeal."      The

notice specifically advised the plaintiff that the action would

be dismissed unless she notified the court within thirty days

that she had served a motion for judgment on the pleadings on

the defendant.   The plaintiff failed to do so, and the case was

dismissed on March 2, 2022.   The plaintiff thereafter filed a

timely notice of appeal.

    The sole issue for consideration in this appeal is whether

the judge abused her discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's

complaint.   See Bucchiere v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 396

Mass. 639, 641 (1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute

committed to sound discretion of court).    An abuse of discretion

is a decision that "falls outside the range of reasonable

alternatives."   L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27

(2014).

    Here, it appears that the plaintiff did nothing to

prosecute the case after the initial filing of the complaint.

                                 3
Approximately nine months after the administrative record was

filed, the court notified the plaintiff of the impending

dismissal and instructed her as to what she needed to do to

avoid dismissal.3   Still, the plaintiff took no action.   Under

the circumstances, the judge was well within her discretion to

dismiss the case.   See Maciuca v. Papit, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 540,

544 (1991) (court has inherent power to dismiss action which

plaintiff has not prosecuted diligently).4

                                     Judgment affirmed.

                                     By the Court (Sullivan,
                                       Desmond & Singh, JJ.5),

                                     Clerk

Entered: May 24, 2023.

3 We note that the "Notice of Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution
of G. L. c. 30A Appeal" does not appear in the Superior Court
docket, though the document itself indicates that notice was
given to all parties. On appeal, the plaintiff makes no
argument regarding lack of notice.
4 The plaintiff's brief does not address the procedural issue

that led to the dismissal of her complaint; it only addresses
the merits of her underlying claim. Although the merits are not
before us, the plaintiff's brief fails to provide any basis on
which we could conclude that the board's decision is erroneous.
5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                 4