Court Opinion

ID: 9917094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 16:09:51.038425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:59.930224
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court

                                                           No. 2022-288-Appeal.
                                                           (PC 21-5947)

               Tara Boulais                :

                    v.                     :

             Maria DiPaola.                :

                                     ORDER

      The plaintiff, Tara Boulais (plaintiff or Ms. Boulais), appeals from a Superior

Court order granting the motion by the defendant, Maria DiPaola (defendant or Ms.

DiPaola), to dismiss her complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds. For the reasons

set forth herein, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.

      On September 16, 2021, Ms. Boulais filed the instant action alleging that her

landlord, Ms. DiPaola, harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against her between

March 2013 and August 2016 in violation of the Rhode Island Fair Housing Act.

Ms. Boulais sought damages for discrimination, loss of quiet enjoyment and use of

the property, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and she referred to a

previous complaint, filed in 2017, regarding the same landlord-tenant matter

currently at issue. The plaintiff averred that the 2017 complaint was dismissed for

lack of service of process and therefore asserted that she was refiling the 2021

complaint pursuant to the savings statute at G.L. 1956 § 9-1-22.

                                         -1-
      The defendant moved to dismiss the 2021 complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the 2021 complaint was

time-barred and ineligible for the protections of the safe-harbor provisions of the

savings statute due to voluntary discontinuance of the 2017 complaint. A justice of

the Superior Court granted the motion and plaintiff timely appealed.

      Ms. Boulais raises two issues for this Court: (1) whether the trial court erred

when it determined that the savings statute did not shield the 2021 complaint from

dismissal; and (2) whether the statute of limitations prevents the instant action from

going forward. The plaintiff does not, however, offer any legal analysis or

substantive discussion of the issues. This Court “deems an issue waived when a

party simply states an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion

thereof.” Palange v. Palange, 243 A.3d 783, 785 (R.I. 2021) (mem.) (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)).

      Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the

hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Article I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court

Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in part, that “[p]romptly after filing the

notice of appeal the appellant shall comply with the provisions of Rule 10(b) or (c)

and shall take any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit

                                         -2-
the record.” Art. I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court Rules. The plaintiff, as the

appellant, must “ensure that the record is complete and ready for transmission.”

Small Business Loan Fund Corporation v. Gallant, 795 A.2d 531, 532 (R.I. 2002)

(quoting Procopio v. PRM Concrete Corporation, 711 A.2d 650, 651 (R.I. 1998)

(mem.)). In the absence of a transcript, this Court cannot determine how the trial

justice came to a decision or, in turn, whether the trial justice erred in coming to that

decision. See 731 Airport Associates, LP v. H & M Realty Associates, LLC, 799 A.2d

279, 282 (R.I. 2002) (“The deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal without

providing the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court is risky

business.”). Consequently, we have “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)).

      Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court and return the record

to the Superior Court.

      Entered as an Order of this Court this ______ day of January, 2024.

                                                By Order,

                                                ______________________
                                                Clerk

                                          -3-
                                          STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
                                     SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
                                           Licht Judicial Complex
                                             250 Benefit Street
                                           Providence, RI 02903

                               ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case                        Tara Boulais v. Maria DiPaola.

                                     No. 2022-288-Appeal.
Case Number
                                     (PC 21-5947)

Date Order Filed                     January 11, 2024

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

Source of Appeal                     Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court    Associate Justice Kevin F. McHugh

                                     For Plaintiff:

                                     David Kreutter, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
                                     For Defendant:

                                     Melody A. Alger, Esq.

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)