Court Opinion

ID: 9927188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 15:05:37.736442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:04.019144
License: Public Domain

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13501

             JACK SAADE    vs.   BRUCE EFRON & another.1

                           January 26, 2024.

   Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

     The petitioner, Jack Saade, appeals from the judgment of a
single justice of this court denying his petition for
extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, as well as
the denial of his related motion to reconsider. We affirm the
judgment and order of the single justice.

     Before the single justice, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3,
Saade challenged a series of interlocutory orders in a pending
Superior Court case. On July 28, 2023, the single justice
denied Saade's petition, finding that Saade failed to
demonstrate the absence of adequate and effective alternative
relief, and further, that the petition did not present the type
of exceptional circumstances requiring the exercise of the
court's extraordinary power of general superintendence. A
motion to reconsider this ruling was denied on September 12,
2023.

     Saade's appeal from these decisions is subject to S.J.C.
Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which applies
where, as here, "a single justice denies relief from a
challenged interlocutory ruling in the trial court." Rule 2:21
expressly requires a petitioner 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." This same standard applied to

    1   BEE Investments.
                                                                  2

Saade's petition to the single justice.   See Greco v. Plymouth
Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996).

     Saade could not and cannot meet this standard because he
was able to appeal interlocutory orders pursuant to G. L.
c. 231, § 118, to a single justice of the Appeals Court. See
Greco, 423 Mass. at 1019-1020 ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3,
does not lie where review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice").
Indeed, he availed himself of G. L. c. 231, § 118, in this case
to appeal one of the very orders at issue. Furthermore, the
Superior Court case has not yet concluded, and adequate and
effective relief will be available to Saade in the ordinary
appellate process. See Greco, supra at 1019.

     We conclude that the single justice neither erred nor
abused her discretion in denying relief, and we resolve this
appeal by affirming her judgment and order.2

                                    Judgment affirmed.

                                    Order denying motion to
                                      reconsider affirmed.

     The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by
a memorandum of law.
     Jack Saade, pro se.

     2 Saade's request for a hearing is denied, as are his
motions for injunctive relief.
                                2