Court Opinion

ID: 9943873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:06:07.123344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:35.206914
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13517

             JONATHAN S. COLE   vs.   CITIBANK, N.A.

                       February 26, 2024.

   Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

     The petitioner, Jonathan S. Cole, appeals from a judgment
of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant
to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

     Cole is the defendant in a debt collection action in the
District Court. He moved to dismiss the complaint in that case,
and a judge denied the motion after a hearing. Cole subsequently
filed several additional motions. Among other things, he sought
to appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss to a single
justice of the Appellate Division pursuant to G. L. c. 231,
§ 118A; he moved for the District Court judge who had denied the
motion to dismiss to recuse himself; and he filed a motion to
stay with a single justice of the Appeals Court. None of these
motions was successful.1 Cole then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3,
petition in the county court, seeking a variety of relief,
including, among other things, dismissal of the debt collection

    1  The petitioner's appeal to a single justice of the
Appellate Division was dismissed on the basis that relief
pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118A, was not available (i.e., that
the statute did not apply in the circumstances). As to the
motion to recuse, the District Court docket indicates that the
motion is moot, although there is no indication in the record as
to why. And, as to the motion to stay filed in the Appeals
Court, a single justice denied the motion essentially on the
basis that the motion was not properly before that court.
                                                                   2

action, on the basis of "fraud on the court"; referral of
counsel representing the plaintiff in the debt collection action
to the Board of Bar Overseers, as well as a stay of any
proceedings in any Massachusetts court in which plaintiff's
counsel is involved on the basis that counsel is not registered
to conduct business in Massachusetts; and referral of the
District Court judge who denied Cole's motion to dismiss to the
Commission on Judicial Conduct. The single justice denied the
petition without a hearing.

     Cole has now filed what appears to have been intended as a
memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule, which applies here
only to the extent that Cole seeks relief from an interlocutory
ruling in the trial court, i.e., the denial of his motion to
dismiss, requires a showing that "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." S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). Cole has not made, and cannot
make, such a showing. There is no reason why review of the
denial of Cole's motion to dismiss cannot adequately be obtained
on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court.
See Foley v. Lowell Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 398 Mass.
800, 802 (1986) ("Where a petitioner can raise his claim in the
normal course of trial and appeal, relief will be denied").

     Cole also claims that he has filed various motions in the
District Court that have not been docketed, and has included in
the record what appear to be copies of those motions with date
stamps from the District Court. It is difficult to discern from
the record, and from the District Court docket, whether those
motions have in fact been docketed, but if they have not, we see
no reason why not. We trust that if the motions were properly
filed, they will be properly docketed.2 Finally, to the extent
that Cole raises issues regarding plaintiff's counsel or the
District Court judge, the proper place to raise those issues is
not via G. L. c. 211, § 3. Rather, he might raise his concerns
with the Board of Bar Overseers or the Commission on Judicial
Conduct, respectively.

    2  If there was in fact a basis for rejecting the
petitioner's motions, or declining to docket them, it would
behoove the clerk, and aid the appellate courts, to indicate any
such basis. See, e.g., Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court
for Civ. Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1019
(2015).
                                                                  3

     The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

                                   Judgment affirmed.

     The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by
a memorandum of law.
     Jonathan S. Cole, pro se.