Court Opinion

ID: 9895210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 15:12:17.619672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:25.443844
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13424

  DOUGLAS VonIDERSTEIN, trustee,1 & another2   vs.   ARA ERESIAN,
                        JR., & another.3

                         November 6, 2023.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
     Arrest. Practice, Criminal, Warrant. Land Court,
     Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, Land Court. Judgment,
     Enforcement.

     Douglas and Linda VonIderstein, as trustees of the
VonIderstein Realty Trust (petitioners), appeal from a judgment
of the county court denying, without a hearing, their petition
for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

     The petitioners are the defendants in a Land Court action
commenced in 2013 by RY-CO International, Ltd. (RY-CO), one of
the respondents in this matter. On the petitioners' motion, RY-
CO's complaint was dismissed. That judgment was affirmed by the
Appeals Court, RY-CO Int'l, Ltd. v. VonIderstein, 89 Mass. App.
Ct. 1130 (2016), and this court denied further appellate review.
477 Mass. 1110 (2017). RY-CO's subsequent motion for relief
from the judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (6), 365
Mass. 828 (1974), was denied. The Appeals Court not only
affirmed that order but also ruled that RY-CO's appeal was
frivolous and awarded attorney's fees and costs to the
petitioners. RY-CO Int'l, Ltd. v. VonIderstein, 95 Mass. App.

    1   Of VonIderstein Realty Trust.

    2   Linda VonIderstein, trustee of VonIderstein Realty Trust.

    3   RY-CO International, Ltd.
                                                                   2

Ct. 1113 (2019).4 The petitioners have since been attempting to
enforce that award in the Land Court. To that end, they
obtained an order requiring Ara Eresian, Jr., who is the
president of RY-CO and the other respondent in this matter, to
identify all real estate in which he holds an interest. Eresian
did not comply with that order, and a judgment of civil contempt
entered. In addition, a capias issued for Eresian's arrest.
The petitioners, alleging that Eresian was evading service of
the capias, requested that the Land Court judge issue an arrest
warrant authorizing entry into his home. The Land Court judge
denied that request. Sometime thereafter, after the
petitioners' attorney represented that Eresian was continuing to
evade service, the judge stated that "[i]f the [petitioners]
seek a criminal warrant for Ara Eresian, Jr., from [the] court,
they must provide the court with a memorandum detailing the
grounds and authority [the] court has to issue such a warrant."
The petitioners did not file such a memorandum. Instead, they
filed their petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3,
requesting that the single justice issue an order authorizing
the Land Court judge to issue an arrest warrant. The single
justice denied relief without a hearing. In a subsequent
memorandum, the single justice stated that the petitioners had
not demonstrated that they lacked an adequate alternative remedy
or that their petition "present[ed] the type of exceptional
matter that requires the court's extraordinary intervention."
Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 25 (2019).

     The petitioners have filed a memorandum and appendix
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).
That rule does not apply in these circumstances, as there is no
"challenged interlocutory ruling in the trial court." S.J.C.
Rule 2:21 (1). The Land Court judge's denial of the request for
an arrest warrant was not an interlocutory ruling, as the case
in the Land Court has gone to final judgment. See Scott v. WM
Oak Grove Village, LLC, 488 Mass. 1019, 1020 (2021). Neither
the request nor the denial disturbed the finality of the
judgment dismissing RY-CO's complaint. Moreover, to the extent
that the petition might be interpreted not as a direct challenge
to the judge's denial of the petitioners' request but as a new
and independent request that the single justice authorize the
judge to issue an arrest warrant, there is likewise no
challenged interlocutory ruling of the trial court.

     4 It appears that RY-CO filed a letter expressing its intent
to apply for further appellate review after this decision by the
Appeals Court. However, it did not file an application.
                                                                   3

Nonetheless, it is clear on the record before us that the single
justice did not err or abuse his discretion by denying relief.

     As the parties seeking to invoke this court's extraordinary
power, the petitioners bore the burden of "demonstrat[ing] both
'"error that cannot be remedied under the ordinary review
process" and a "substantial claim of violation of [his]
substantive rights."'" Ardaneh v. Commonwealth, 492 Mass. 1019,
1020 (2023), quoting Care & Protection of Zita, 455 Mass. 272,
277-278 (2009). See Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v.
Operation Rescue, 406 Mass. 701, 706 (1990). The petitioners
scarcely addressed this requirement in their petition, merely
asserting that Eresian's conduct showed that only the single
justice could grant the relief they needed. They offered no
reason why they could not have appealed to the Appeals Court
from the denial of their request for an arrest warrant, nor did
they explain in their petition their failure to file the written
memorandum suggested by the judge, which might have persuaded
him to issue the warrant.5 Where the petitioners failed to make
the required showing that they lacked an adequate alternative
remedy, the single justice neither erred nor abused his
discretion by denying extraordinary relief.

                                   Judgment affirmed.

     The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by
a memorandum of law.
     David J. Fine for the petitioners.

    5  The petitioners now state that they were unable to find
any authority showing that the Land Court judge had the power to
issue an arrest warrant. Even if this meant that filing a
written memorandum would not have been an adequate remedy, an
issue we do not decide, this argument was not presented in their
petition. The single justice cannot have abused his discretion
by failing to consider an argument that was not made before him.
Moreover, if indeed the Land Court judge lacked authority to
issue an arrest warrant, the single justice could not have been
obligated to order him to do so.