Jahm v. Mall at Liberty Tree, LLC

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition brought under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief.

Petitioner brought a personal injury action against Respondent, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. After the close of the evidence but prior to closing arguments, Petitioner indicated that he no longer wished to continue with the trial. After discussing the decision with Petitioner, the judge dismissed the complaint. Petitioner subsequently filed a notice of appeal and then a second notice of appeal. The judge dismissed the first appeal and then struck the second notice of appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed this petition asking the court to declare a mistrial and to order a new trial. The single justice summarily denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on the underlying complaint. The Court then remanded the matter with instructions to process the second notice of appeal.

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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-13020 RASHID JAHM vs. MALL AT LIBERTY TREE, LLC. April 14, 2021. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Civil, Notice of appeal. The petitioner, Rashid Jahm, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. In December 2014, Jahm commenced a personal injury action against the respondent, Mall at Liberty Tree, LLC (Mall at Liberty Tree), claiming that he was injured when he slipped and fell at a shopping mall that it owned and operated. The case proceeded to a jury trial. After the close of evidence but prior to closing arguments, Jahm -- who was, as he is now, appearing pro se -- indicated that he no longer wanted to continue with the trial. The judge discussed the decision with Jahm at length, indicating to him that, if he chose to end the case at that point, the judge would dismiss the complaint with prejudice and that Jahm would have no right to appeal. Jahm chose not to continue, and the judge dismissed the complaint. Jahm subsequently filed a notice of appeal. The Mall at Liberty Tree, in response, filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the appeal, which was allowed. Jahm then filed a second notice of appeal, which the Mall at Liberty Tree again moved to dismiss. The trial judge then held a hearing because he wanted to "make things as clear as [he] possibly could" for Jahm. The judge struck the second notice of appeal and informed Jahm that if he filed any further notices or motions in the case, the documents would be docketed but no action would be taken on any such filings. Approximately two years later, Jahm filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, asking the court to declare a 2 mistrial and order a new trial. petition without a hearing. A single justice denied the The papers that Jahm filed in this court do not constitute adequate appellate argument and do not establish a basis for the specific relief he sought in his petition, i.e., an order from the county court granting a mistrial or a new trial in the underlying litigation. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). To the extent that Jahm now asks this court, on appeal from the single justice's judgment, to order a judgment in his favor on the merits of his underlying claims, that relief also is improper. Jahm is not entitled to that or any other relief from this court on the underlying complaint. That said, we observe that Jahm had an absolute right to appeal from the judge's order striking his first notice of appeal and thereby to challenge the correctness of that order. His second notice of appeal apparently was an attempt to exercise that right. It was not for the judge to preempt that right by striking the second notice of appeal. See Elles v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Quincy, 450 Mass. 671, 673 (2008), and cases cited. See also Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civ. Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1019 (2015); Reznik v. District Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 456 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2010). For that reason, while we affirm the single justice's judgment on the petition that was before her, we also remand this matter to the Superior Court (a) for entry of an order vacating the order striking Jahm's second notice of appeal and (b) with instructions to the clerk's office in that court to process the second notice of appeal. We trust that, in these circumstances, Jahm will be afforded a reasonable amount of time by the court to comply with his obligations as the appellant.1 So ordered. The case was submitted on briefs. Rashid Jahm, pro se. Gino Spinelli for the respondent. The appeal will of course be limited to the question whether the judge erred in striking the first notice of appeal. We express no view on the merits of the appeal. 1
Primary Holding
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition brought under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief.

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.