Isijola v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

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

After the registry of motor vehicles notified Petitioner that it was suspending his driver's license on the basis that his driver's license in New Hampshire had been suspended. The decision was upheld on appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner brought an action in the superior court seeking judicial review. The Board filed a motion to stay on the basis that the New Hampshire suspension was still pending. The judge allowed the motion to stay. After Petitioner unsuccessfully filed a petition for interlocutory review with a single justice of the appeals court Petitioner filed his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from the trial court rulings. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief.

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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-13185 FEMI E. ISIJOLA vs. BOARD OF APPEAL ON MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY POLICIES AND BONDS. December 16, 2021. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. The petitioner, Femi E. Isijola, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. In September 2020, the registry of motor vehicles (registry) notified Isijola that it was suspending his driver's license on the basis that the New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles, had suspended his driver's license in New Hampshire.1 Isijola appealed to the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Polices and Bonds (board), which upheld the registry's decision. Isijola then commenced an action in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14, in Pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 22 (c), if the Registrar of Motor Vehicles 1 "receives official notice . . . that a resident of the commonwealth . . . has had a license or right to operate suspended or revoked in another state . . . the registrar shall not issue a license to said person, and if a license has already been issued the registrar shall immediately revoke said license, without a prior hearing. However, if said license or right to operate is subsequently reinstated by such other state, . . . the person may apply to the registrar for reinstatement of said license in the commonwealth." 2 March 2021, seeking judicial review of the board's decision. The board filed a motion to stay the Superior Court case on the basis that Isijola's appeal of the New Hampshire suspension was still pending in that State and that resolution of the appeal would affect the issues presented in the Massachusetts proceedings. A judge allowed the motion to stay. The judge also declined to act on Isijola's motion for summary judgment, pending resolution of the New Hampshire matter. Isijola thereafter filed a petition for interlocutory review with a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. A single justice denied the petition.2 Undeterred, Isijola then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court, again seeking relief from the trial court rulings. In his petition he argued that he had no other avenue for appellate review and he asked the court to vacate the stay and to allow his motion for summary judgment. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which 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). Isijola has not made, and cannot make, such a showing. He has already sought interlocutory review of the trial court rulings in question under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., and has been denied relief by a single justice of the Appeals Court. He is not entitled as of right to additional review under this court's extraordinary power of general superintendence at this stage. See Guzzi v. Secretary of Pub. Safety, 450 Mass. 1016, 1016 (2007) ("Although his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, was denied, G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not provide a second opportunity as a matter of right for interlocutory relief"). See also Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice"). The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The petitioner's subsequent notice of appeal from the single justice's decision was struck, properly (and by a different single justice), on the basis that there is no right to appeal from the denial of a petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. See McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 178, 189-193 (2008). 2 3 Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Femi E. Isijola, pro se. Nicole B. Capridli, Assistant Attorney General, for the respondent.
Primary Holding
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to 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.