Court Opinion

ID: 9395536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 14:06:26.800912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.369640
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-339

                              GERARD D. GRANDOIT

                                       vs.

     MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION & others1 (and
                       three consolidated cases2)

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

        Gerard D. Grandoit appeals from orders and judgments

 dismissing four complaints against the Massachusetts Commission

 Against Discrimination (commission) and others, for failure to

 file the complaints in accordance with a screening order imposed

 by a judge of the Superior Court in January of 2022.               On appeal,

 Grandoit claims that he never received the Superior Court

 screening order, and that his claims are meritorious and should

 be heard.    We affirm.

        A frequent litigant, Grandoit has repeatedly attempted to

 file appeals from lack of probable cause findings by the

 1 Sweepstakes Audit Bureau, Prize Report Opt-Out, and Emerson
 Publishing Inc.
 2 The cases involve the same parties.
commission in the Superior Court.     See, e.g., Grandoit v.

Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 95 Mass. App. Ct.

603 (2019); Grandoit v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against

Discrimination, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 (2020) (decision pursuant

to former rule 1:28, now known as rule 23.0).     The Superior

Court has no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal.     Grandoit, 95

Mass. App. Ct. at 604.     The January 2022 order of the Superior

Court clearly instructed that all complaints filed by Grandoit

must be verified and reviewed by a regional administrative

justice to determine whether or not they are frivolous before

they are accepted for filing.    The screening order was properly

tailored, and comports with due process, contrary to the

plaintiff's arguments.     See Berkson v. Palmer & Dodge LLP, 428

Mass. 1002, 1002 (1998); Brookline v. Goldstein, 388 Mass. 443,

448 n.6 (1983); Laurence v. Rhode Island Dep't of Corrections,

68 A.3d 543, 549 (2013).    The four complaints in this matter,

which purport to appeal from orders dismissing complaints the

plaintiff filed with the commission for lack of probable cause,

did not comply with the screening order.     The Superior Court

judge did not abuse her considerable discretion in dismissing

them.

    The plaintiff claims that he had no notice of the screening

order.   The docket reflects that the parties were notified.      See

Northeast Line Constr. Corp. v. J.E. Guertin Co., 80 Mass. App.

                                  2
Ct. 646, 651 (2011), quoting Commonwealth v. Podoprigora, 46

Mass. App. Ct. 928, 929 (1999) (docket sheets prima facie

evidence of facts recorded).    See also Savage v. Welch, 246

Mass. 170, 176 (1923); Washington Nat'l Bank v. Williams, 190

Mass. 497, 503 (1906).     Grandoit did not rebut this showing with

admissible evidence.     Northeast Line Constr. Corp., supra at

652.   However, even if we were to excuse the lack of compliance

on this basis, the four complaints filed in the Superior Court

were properly dismissed.    The Superior Court has no jurisdiction

to entertain such appeals, as our previous case involving this

plaintiff held.   Moreover, as we have previously observed,

Grandoit has a remedy -- he may file a complaint in the Superior

Court against the entities he claims discriminated against him.

"An investigating commissioner's determination of no probable

cause will end the administrative process but will not preclude

the complainant from bringing a civil action under G. L.

c. 151B, § 9, against the person or entity that committed the

alleged discrimination.    Chapter 151B thus provides for a

                                  3
reasonably adequate remedy."    Grandoit, 95 Mass. App. Ct. at

608.

                                      The orders dated February 11,
                                        2022, and the judgments of
                                        dismissal are affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Sullivan,
                                        Desmond & Singh, JJ.3),

                                      Clerk

Entered:    May 18, 2023.

3   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  4