JASBIR MANN & Another v. JONATHAN A. COTTRELL & Another.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: May 29, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-1000
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

25-P-1000

JASBIR MANN & another1

vs.

JONATHAN A. COTTRELL & another.2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

This action arises out of a real estate transaction between

the parties. The defendants appeal from the order of a single

justice of this court denying their request to stay execution of

a judgment of the Plymouth Superior Court, pending appeal,

pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6, as appearing in 494 Mass. 1601

(2024). We affirm.

Background. This case has a detailed procedural history.

In 2021, the plaintiffs sued the defendants in Bristol Superior

Court, alleging several claims related to a real estate

1 Rosemarie Cote.

2 Rebecca Cottrell. transaction. The defendants filed counterclaims, including for

defamation, and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The

plaintiffs filed a special motion to dismiss the defendants'

defamation claim under the anti-SLAPP statute, G. L. c. 231,

§ 59H. A judge of the Bristol Superior Court granted the

plaintiffs' special motion to dismiss, and also denied the

defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and the

defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' opposition to the

defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The judge

also denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration of these

orders. Pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, the defendants sought

review of the interlocutory orders by a single justice of this

court, and all requests for relief were denied. See Mann v.

Cottrell, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 1101 (2023).

In the underlying action, the plaintiffs continued to

pursue discovery, and a Superior Court judge granted several

motions to compel discovery. A Superior Court judge also

granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees pursuant to

G. L. c. 231, § 59H. After the case was transferred from

Bristol County to Plymouth County, the plaintiffs moved for

entry of judgment and sanctions pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P.

37 (b) (2) (C), as amended, 390 Mass. 1208 (1984), due to the

defendants' failure to comply with discovery orders. After a

hearing, which the defendants did not attend, a judge granted

2 this motion and ordered judgment to issue in favor of the

plaintiffs; the order also incorporated the previously awarded

attorney's fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. The defendants

filed a motion to vacate and a motion for relief or to stay

proceedings, and a hearing was scheduled. Following a hearing

at which all the parties attended, the defendants' motions were

denied, and the judge again allowed the motion for sanctions and

entry of judgment, reissuing his order. The defendants filed a

timely notice of appeal from the judgment.

After filing a motion for reconsideration and stay pending

appeal in the Superior Court, the defendants filed a motion to

stay execution of judgment pending appeal with a single justice

of this court. After a judge of the Superior Court denied the

pending motion for reconsideration and to stay, the single

justice also denied relief. The defendants now appeal from the

single justice's order denying their request to stay pending

appeal.

Discussion. On appeal, the defendants address the merits

of several underlying orders in this litigation, none of which

are before us on appeal. The only matter properly before us is

the single justice's denial of the motion to stay execution of

judgment pending appeal.

We review the single justice's ruling for error of law or

abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Nash, 486 Mass. 394,

3 412 (2020). "The appellate court does not exercise its own

independent discretion to evaluate the request for a stay;

rather, it reviews the correctness of the single justice's

ruling." Id. An appellant seeking a stay pending appeal

ordinarily must meet four tests: "(1) the likelihood of

appellant's success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of

irreparable harm to appellant if the court denies the stay;

(3) the absence of substantial harm to other parties if the stay

issues; and (4) the absence of harm to the public interest from

granting the stay" (citation omitted). C.E. v. J.E., 472 Mass.

1016, 1017 (2015).

The defendants have not pointed us to any error of law or

abuse of discretion by the single justice in the denial of their

motion to stay. The defendants have failed to articulate how,

among other requirements, they will be irreparably harmed from

the denial of the stay. Furthermore, regarding the defendants'

requests to render judgments or declare orders to be void, the

single justice did not err in denying these requests where a

single justice is without the authority to take such dispositive

action. See DeLucia v. Kfoury, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 166, 168

(2018). On review, we discern no error of law or abuse of

discretion by the single justice. See generally Mezoff v.

Cudnohufsky, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 874, 874 (1977) ("Rarely, if ever,

4 can it be said that a single justice is in error in denying

relief").

As to the plaintiffs' request for appellate attorney's fees

pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H, that issue is not before us.

While attorney's fees are mandatory under G. L. c. 231, § 59H,

when a judge allows such a special motion to dismiss, as

occurred here, and when this court affirms such a ruling

allowing the special motion to dismiss, see Columbia Plaza

Assocs. v. Northeastern Univ., 493 Mass. 570, 589-590 (2024),

given the procedural posture of this case, our review is limited

to the single justice's denial of the motion to stay.3

Single justice order dated July 24, 2025, affirmed.4

By the Court (Meade, D'Angelo & Tan, JJ.5),

Clerk

Entered: May 29, 2026.

3 The defendants also raise several new arguments in their brief that were not presented to the single justice. As our review is confined to whether the single justice abused her discretion, we decline to address these late-blooming claims.

4 The plaintiffs' request for appellate attorney's fees, on the ground that this appeal is frivolous, is denied. The defendants' requests for sanctions and for an investigation are also denied.

5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.