Padmanabhan v. Cooke

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the county court denying Petitioner's petition for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, 4, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief.

Petitioner brought this action against Respondent alleging slander, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Petitioner sought to have the Attorney General disqualified from representing Respondent, but Petitioner's motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration of the issue were denied. Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 118 seeking review. The appeals court denied the petition on the basis that it was not timely filed. Petitioner then sought relief in the nature of certiorari. The Supreme Judicial Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his claims were not otherwise reviewable.

Download PDF

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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) 5571030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12718 BHARANIDHARAN PADMANABHAN vs. LORETTA COOKE. December 12, 2019. Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari. The judgment petition G. L. c. petitioner, Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, appeals from a of a single justice of the county court denying his for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to 249, § 4. We affirm. As best we can tell from the record before us, the petitioner commenced an action against the respondent in the trial court claiming, among other things, slander, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.1 In the course of those proceedings, the petitioner sought to have the Attorney General "disqualified" from representing the respondent. A judge denied the petitioner's motion, but the petitioner persisted, eventually leading the judge to state, in denying a motion for reconsideration of the issue, that the petitioner's continued efforts on the issue were "vexatious." The judge further stated that "the Court will be mindful of such notice in consideration of any further effort on the issue and any request for costs by the [respondent] in responding to any such further efforts." The petitioner thereafter filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., with a single justice of the Appeals Court, seeking review of the denial of the motion for reconsideration and complaining about the trial court judge's Although the details of these claims are not apparent in the record before us, they appear to stem, in some fashion, from the suspension of the petitioner's license to practice medicine. 1 2 threat of sanctions. petition on the basis petitioner then filed court, which a single hearing. An Appeals Court single justice denied the that it was not timely filed. The his certiorari petition in the county justice of this court denied without a Certiorari review is designed to "correct errors in proceedings which are not . . . otherwise reviewable by motion or by appeal." G. L. c. 249, § 4. The petitioner has not, and cannot, demonstrate that his claims were not otherwise reviewable. To the extent that he seeks review of the trial court judge's denial of his motion for reconsideration, he has already sought such review pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., and has been denied relief by a single justice of the Appeals Court. Picciotto v. Appeals Court (No. 2), 457 Mass. 1002, 1002, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1044 (2010) (denying certiorari review where petitioners had other adequate avenue for review).2 He is not entitled as of right to any further interlocutory review. To the extent that he seeks review of the judge's warning that certain future filings in that court may subject the petitioner to sanctions, no such sanctions have yet been imposed. If a judge in the trial court does, in his or her discretion, sanction the petitioner in the future, the petitioner will be able to challenge that ruling. The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 249, § 4. Judgment affirmed. Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, pro se. Mark P. Sutliff, Assistant Attorney General, for the respondent. The petitioner's certiorari petition, filed after a single justice of the Appeals Court had already denied his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., was nothing more than a second attempt to obtain review of the challenged ruling of the trial court. 2

Primary Holding

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.