Court Opinion

ID: 9376656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 15:05:23.02749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:08.083685
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-157

                                  SYED K. RAFI

                                       vs.

              HARVARD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL1 & others.2

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       On June 19, 2020, the plaintiff, Syed Rafi, filed a

 complaint against the defendants alleging violations of the

 Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.          This complaint is the latest in

 a long history of litigation that Rafi has initiated against the

 defendants arising from the same set of allegations:               that the

 defendants engaged in a race and class-based conspiracy to deny

 Rafi employment.      On September 24, 2020, the defendants moved to

 dismiss the complaint, arguing res judicata applied and that

 Rafi failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

 In a decision dated February 25, 2021, and docketed on March 5,

 1 As is our custom, the parties' names appear as they do in the
 complaint.

 2 Brigham and Women's Hospital; Children's Hospital Boston;
 Massachusetts General Hospital; Mira B. Irons; Cynthia C.
 Morton; Marcy E. MacDonald; and Richard L. Maas.
2021, a Superior Court judge allowed the defendants' motion,

agreeing that Rafi's claims were barred by claim preclusion

because he had previously filed other suits alleging that

defendants engaged in a race and class-based conspiracy to deny

him employment.    Judgment for the defendants issued on March 8,

2021.   Rafi did not file a notice of appeal from the judgment

until November 9, 2021.

    On July 28, 2021, Rafi served, and on July 29, 2021, Rafi

filed, a motion for reconsideration of the judgment of

dismissal.   That motion was denied on November 8, 2021, because,

as the judge stated, it "raise[d] no arguments that were not

addressed in this Court's Memorandum of Decision and Order on

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss."       On November 9, 2021, Rafi filed

this appeal, purporting to appeal from both the judgment of

dismissal of the case and the judge's ruling on his motion for

reconsideration.

    The defendants argue that the plaintiff's appeal of the

Superior Court's judgment of dismissal is untimely.      In a civil

case such as this, appellants must file their notice of appeal

within thirty days of the date of the entry of the applicable

judgment or order.    See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a) (1), as appearing

in 481 Mass. 1606 (2019).    If, however, an appellant serves a

motion to alter or amend a judgment within ten days of the entry

of the judgment, then the time to file an appeal runs from the

                                  2
entry of the order disposing of that motion.   See Mass. R. A. P.

4 (a) (2) (C), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1606 (2019).

    Here, Rafi's appeal of the March 8, 2021 judgment of

dismissal is untimely.   Rafi's motion for reconsideration, which

in substance was a motion under rule 4 (a) (2) (C), was served

and filed more than four months after the judgment of dismissal.

During oral arguments, Rafi claimed he was unable to file his

motion for reconsideration in a timely fashion due to the COVID-

19 pandemic.   Nothing in the record supports this contention.

Because Rafi's motion for reconsideration was served beyond the

ten-day window mentioned in Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a) (2) (C), Rafi

had thirty days after the entry of judgment on March 8, 2021, to

appeal from the judgment dismissing his complaint.   His notice

of appeal filed on November 9, 2021, was well beyond that time.

    The only issue timely appealed and thus properly before us

is the denial of Rafi's motion for reconsideration, appealed the

day after the denial of the motion.   We review a judge's denial

of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion.      See

Piedra v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 39 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 188 (1995).

After reviewing the record, we see no abuse of discretion.     All

of the arguments raised in Rafi's motion for reconsideration

were thoroughly addressed in the judge's order granting

                                 3
dismissal.3   We see no reason to disturb the judge's ruling on

the motion for reconsideration and accordingly affirm.

                                      Order of November 8, 2021,
                                        denying motion for
                                        reconsideration, affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Massing,
                                        Sacks & Walsh, JJ.4)

                                      Clerk

Entered:    March 3, 2023.

3 Rafi's arguments in his motion for reconsideration consisted of
the following: the court was incorrect to conclude that Rafi
had not sufficiently pled any claims upon which relief can be
granted; the court was incorrect to conclude that Rafi failed to
sufficiently plead a claim under G. L. c. 12, § 11H, as the
statute does provide a cause of action; the court was incorrect
to conclude that claim preclusion barred Rafi's claims. Each of
these arguments was also made previously in his filings in
opposition to the defendants' motion seeking dismissal.

4   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  4