Supreme Court
No. 2025-130-Appeal. (KC 23-24)
LandingPartners LLC :
v. :
Shiva, LLC, et al. :
ORDER
The defendant, Jay Patel, appeals pro se from a Superior Court order granting
motions to quash a subpoena and “for [p]rotective [o]rder.” Both motions were filed
by the plaintiff, LandingPartners LLC (plaintiff or LandingPartners); the former
motion was joined by another defendant in the action, Centreville Bank
(Centreville).1 This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order
directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal
should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral
submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown
and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the
1 In addition to Mr. Patel and Centreville, LandingPartners filed suit against two other defendants in the Superior Court: Shiva, LLC (Shiva) and Airport Hospitality, LLC (Airport Hospitality) (collectively, defendants). Mr. Patel is believed to own both Shiva and Airport Hospitality; however, his notice of appeal indicates that he is the sole party appealing. -1- reasons set forth herein, the appeal is denied and dismissed, and the order of the
Superior Court is affirmed.
The underlying dispute stems from the breach of a purchase and sale
agreement involving real property located at 1850 Post Road in Warwick, Rhode
Island (the agreement). We recite herein the relevant portions of the procedural
history pertinent to Mr. Patel’s present appeal.
On January 10, 2023, plaintiff filed suit against defendants in the Superior
Court, later amending the complaint on January 11 and January 31 of the same year.
The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of implied-in-fact
contract, and detrimental reliance. Following Mr. Patel, Shiva, and Airport
Hospitality’s failure to respond, plaintiff moved for an entry of default judgment. A
default judgment entered against the three defendants on July 21, 2023. Included in
the judgment, the hearing justice found that plaintiff had established all of the
required elements for specific performance against the defaulted defendants, and she
ordered them “to specifically perform the [a]greement, conveying 1850 Post Road,
Warwick, Rhode Island in accordance with the [a]greement, so that the [p]arties can
proceed with a closing.” The hearing justice also appointed a commissioner, Richard
Gemma, Esq. (Commissioner Gemma), to effectuate the terms of the default
judgment and position the parties “to close, as if [Shiva, Mr. Patel, and Airport
Hospitality] fully performed the [a]greement.”
-2- Thereafter, plaintiff and Centreville engaged in court-ordered mediation for
the purpose of effectuating the sale of the property. They ultimately entered into a
consent order, and on October 19, 2023, by stipulation of plaintiff and Centreville,
the suit was dismissed with prejudice. On April 17, 2024, nearly nine months after
default judgment entered against him, Mr. Patel filed a motion to vacate the judgment
under Rule 60 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that he was
never served with the complaint and only learned of the default via an email from
Commissioner Gemma dated July 27, 2023. Mr. Patel’s motion was heard and
denied on June 28, 2024.
In the following months, Mr. Patel propounded requests for admissions,
sought the production of documents, and issued a subpoena to depose Commissioner
Gemma. The plaintiff responded with a motion to quash the subpoena and issue a
protective order, arguing that the subpoena was defective and discovery in the matter
was closed. Thereafter, Centreville moved to join plaintiff’s motion to quash. The
hearing justice heard the above-mentioned motions on April 3, 2025, and entered an
order on April 9, granting plaintiff’s and Centreville’s motions to quash as well as
plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. Mr. Patel filed an appeal to this Court on
April 22, 2025.
“It is well settled that, ‘in granting or denying discovery motions, a Superior
Court justice has broad discretion, which this Court will not disturb save for an abuse
-3- of that discretion.’” Cranston Police Retirees Action Committee v. City of Cranston,
by and through Strom, 208 A.3d 557, 589 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State v. Lead
Industries Association, Inc., 64 A.3d 1183, 1191 (R.I. 2013)). Similarly, a trial
justice’s decision to quash a subpoena is also reviewed by this Court under an abuse
of discretion standard. See Butera v. Boucher, 798 A.2d 340, 345 (R.I. 2002).
Mr. Patel argues that the hearing justice abused her discretion by quashing the
subpoena of Commissioner Gemma and granting plaintiff’s motion for a protective
order. He maintains that post-judgment discovery “is disfavored but permitted upon
a showing of good cause to support allegations of fraud.” Further, he contends that
the hearing justice erred by finding that the subpoena was defectively served despite
the fact that Commissioner Gemma “acknowledged receipt” which, he argues,
satisfied Rule 45(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and Rhode Island
precedent.
As a preliminary, and, in this case, dispositive matter, we note that Mr. Patel
has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the April 3 hearing where the
hearing justice heard arguments on both plaintiff’s and Centreville’s motions, the
result of which he now appeals from. Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court
Rules of Appellate Procedure dictates that “within twenty (20) days after filing the
notice of appeal the appellant shall order from the reporter a transcript of such parts
-4- of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant deems necessary for inclusion
in the record.”
“We have consistently warned that it is fundamental that ‘a party seeking to
have this Court review alleged error has the burden of furnishing us with so much of
the record as may be required to enable this Court to pass on the error alleged.’”
Kalooski v. Albert-Frankenthal AG, 770 A.2d 831, 833 (R.I. 2001) (brackets
omitted) (quoting May v. Penn T.V. & Furniture Co., 686 A.2d 95, 98 (R.I. 1996)).
“If the appealing party fails to provide us with a sufficient transcript, we cannot
perform a meaningful review and have no choice but to uphold the trial justice’s
findings.” Id. (quoting May, 686 A.2d at 98).
Mr. Patel’s failure to order the April 3 hearing transcript appears to be an
intentional decision as opposed to a lack of understanding or familiarity with this
Court’s rules.2 His notice of appeal indicates that he would not order the transcript,
and Mr. Patel asserts in his papers that “the appeal is based on [q]uestions of [l]aw
and [s]tructural [e]rrors * * * which are evident in the existing court file and the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Supreme Court
No. 2025-130-Appeal. (KC 23-24)
LandingPartners LLC :
v. :
Shiva, LLC, et al. :
ORDER
The defendant, Jay Patel, appeals pro se from a Superior Court order granting
motions to quash a subpoena and “for [p]rotective [o]rder.” Both motions were filed
by the plaintiff, LandingPartners LLC (plaintiff or LandingPartners); the former
motion was joined by another defendant in the action, Centreville Bank
(Centreville).1 This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order
directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal
should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral
submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown
and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the
1 In addition to Mr. Patel and Centreville, LandingPartners filed suit against two other defendants in the Superior Court: Shiva, LLC (Shiva) and Airport Hospitality, LLC (Airport Hospitality) (collectively, defendants). Mr. Patel is believed to own both Shiva and Airport Hospitality; however, his notice of appeal indicates that he is the sole party appealing. -1- reasons set forth herein, the appeal is denied and dismissed, and the order of the
Superior Court is affirmed.
The underlying dispute stems from the breach of a purchase and sale
agreement involving real property located at 1850 Post Road in Warwick, Rhode
Island (the agreement). We recite herein the relevant portions of the procedural
history pertinent to Mr. Patel’s present appeal.
On January 10, 2023, plaintiff filed suit against defendants in the Superior
Court, later amending the complaint on January 11 and January 31 of the same year.
The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of implied-in-fact
contract, and detrimental reliance. Following Mr. Patel, Shiva, and Airport
Hospitality’s failure to respond, plaintiff moved for an entry of default judgment. A
default judgment entered against the three defendants on July 21, 2023. Included in
the judgment, the hearing justice found that plaintiff had established all of the
required elements for specific performance against the defaulted defendants, and she
ordered them “to specifically perform the [a]greement, conveying 1850 Post Road,
Warwick, Rhode Island in accordance with the [a]greement, so that the [p]arties can
proceed with a closing.” The hearing justice also appointed a commissioner, Richard
Gemma, Esq. (Commissioner Gemma), to effectuate the terms of the default
judgment and position the parties “to close, as if [Shiva, Mr. Patel, and Airport
Hospitality] fully performed the [a]greement.”
-2- Thereafter, plaintiff and Centreville engaged in court-ordered mediation for
the purpose of effectuating the sale of the property. They ultimately entered into a
consent order, and on October 19, 2023, by stipulation of plaintiff and Centreville,
the suit was dismissed with prejudice. On April 17, 2024, nearly nine months after
default judgment entered against him, Mr. Patel filed a motion to vacate the judgment
under Rule 60 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that he was
never served with the complaint and only learned of the default via an email from
Commissioner Gemma dated July 27, 2023. Mr. Patel’s motion was heard and
denied on June 28, 2024.
In the following months, Mr. Patel propounded requests for admissions,
sought the production of documents, and issued a subpoena to depose Commissioner
Gemma. The plaintiff responded with a motion to quash the subpoena and issue a
protective order, arguing that the subpoena was defective and discovery in the matter
was closed. Thereafter, Centreville moved to join plaintiff’s motion to quash. The
hearing justice heard the above-mentioned motions on April 3, 2025, and entered an
order on April 9, granting plaintiff’s and Centreville’s motions to quash as well as
plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. Mr. Patel filed an appeal to this Court on
April 22, 2025.
“It is well settled that, ‘in granting or denying discovery motions, a Superior
Court justice has broad discretion, which this Court will not disturb save for an abuse
-3- of that discretion.’” Cranston Police Retirees Action Committee v. City of Cranston,
by and through Strom, 208 A.3d 557, 589 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State v. Lead
Industries Association, Inc., 64 A.3d 1183, 1191 (R.I. 2013)). Similarly, a trial
justice’s decision to quash a subpoena is also reviewed by this Court under an abuse
of discretion standard. See Butera v. Boucher, 798 A.2d 340, 345 (R.I. 2002).
Mr. Patel argues that the hearing justice abused her discretion by quashing the
subpoena of Commissioner Gemma and granting plaintiff’s motion for a protective
order. He maintains that post-judgment discovery “is disfavored but permitted upon
a showing of good cause to support allegations of fraud.” Further, he contends that
the hearing justice erred by finding that the subpoena was defectively served despite
the fact that Commissioner Gemma “acknowledged receipt” which, he argues,
satisfied Rule 45(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and Rhode Island
precedent.
As a preliminary, and, in this case, dispositive matter, we note that Mr. Patel
has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the April 3 hearing where the
hearing justice heard arguments on both plaintiff’s and Centreville’s motions, the
result of which he now appeals from. Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court
Rules of Appellate Procedure dictates that “within twenty (20) days after filing the
notice of appeal the appellant shall order from the reporter a transcript of such parts
-4- of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant deems necessary for inclusion
in the record.”
“We have consistently warned that it is fundamental that ‘a party seeking to
have this Court review alleged error has the burden of furnishing us with so much of
the record as may be required to enable this Court to pass on the error alleged.’”
Kalooski v. Albert-Frankenthal AG, 770 A.2d 831, 833 (R.I. 2001) (brackets
omitted) (quoting May v. Penn T.V. & Furniture Co., 686 A.2d 95, 98 (R.I. 1996)).
“If the appealing party fails to provide us with a sufficient transcript, we cannot
perform a meaningful review and have no choice but to uphold the trial justice’s
findings.” Id. (quoting May, 686 A.2d at 98).
Mr. Patel’s failure to order the April 3 hearing transcript appears to be an
intentional decision as opposed to a lack of understanding or familiarity with this
Court’s rules.2 His notice of appeal indicates that he would not order the transcript,
and Mr. Patel asserts in his papers that “the appeal is based on [q]uestions of [l]aw
and [s]tructural [e]rrors * * * which are evident in the existing court file and the
Commissioner’s own records.” Thus, he submits that “a transcript of the lower
2 Even so, we note that this Court has long recognized that “[e]ven if a litigant is acting pro se, he or she is expected to familiarize himself or herself with the law as well as the rules of procedure.” Sentas v. Sentas, 911 A.2d 266, 271 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Faerber v. Cavanagh, 568 A.2d 326, 330 (R.I. 1990)). -5- court’s biased proceedings is not a prerequisite for the Supreme Court to review the
fraud on the court.”
Although he fails to cite any authority for support, Mr. Patel’s apparent
assertion that a transcript of the lower court proceeding is not required when an
appellant is challenging a ruling of law is not entirely without merit. This Court has
permitted an appeal to move forward despite an appellant’s failure to provide a
transcript of the pertinent proceedings below when “the appeal is limited to a
challenge to rulings of law that appear sufficiently on the record and the party accepts
the findings of the trial justice as correct * * *.” 731 Airport Associates, LP v. H &
M Realty Associates, LLC ex rel. Leef, 799 A.2d 279, 282 (R.I. 2002). However, the
record here is wholly insufficient to permit our review.
The sole document evincing what happened at the April 3 hearing is a
one-page order that indicates, “for reasons stated on the record,” first, plaintiff’s and
Centreville’s motions to quash are granted and “[t]he [d]eposition of Commissioner
Richard Gemma, Esq. shall not go forward[,]” and, second, the motion for a
protective order is granted and “[d]ocument production is not appropriate at this
time, as discovery in this case is closed.”
We have repeatedly warned that “[t]he deliberate decision to prosecute an
appeal without providing the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial
court is risky business.” 731 Airport Associates, LP, 799 A.2d at 282. Without a
-6- transcript of the April 3 hearing, we are unable to provide a meaningful review as to
whether the hearing justice abused her discretion in the manner which Mr. Patel now
complains of. Accordingly, his appeal cannot move forward.
For the reasons set forth herein, the appeal is denied and dismissed, and the
order of the Superior Court is affirmed. The papers may be returned to the Superior
Court.
Entered as an Order of this Court this _____ day of June, 2026.
By Order,
____________________________ Clerk
-7- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case LandingPartners LLC v. Shiva, LLC, et al.
No. 2025-130-Appeal. Case Number (KC 23-24)
Date Order Filed June 3, 2026
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter
For Plaintiff:
Madeline Coburn, Esq. Attorney(s) on Appeal John O. Mancini, Esq. For Defendant:
Jay Patel, pro se
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)