Tara Boulais v. Maria DiPaola
This text of Tara Boulais v. Maria DiPaola (Tara Boulais v. Maria DiPaola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Supreme Court
No. 2022-288-Appeal. (PC 21-5947)
Tara Boulais :
v. :
Maria DiPaola. :
ORDER
The plaintiff, Tara Boulais (plaintiff or Ms. Boulais), appeals from a Superior
Court order granting the motion by the defendant, Maria DiPaola (defendant or Ms.
DiPaola), to dismiss her complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds. For the reasons
set forth herein, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.
On September 16, 2021, Ms. Boulais filed the instant action alleging that her
landlord, Ms. DiPaola, harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against her between
March 2013 and August 2016 in violation of the Rhode Island Fair Housing Act.
Ms. Boulais sought damages for discrimination, loss of quiet enjoyment and use of
the property, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and she referred to a
previous complaint, filed in 2017, regarding the same landlord-tenant matter
currently at issue. The plaintiff averred that the 2017 complaint was dismissed for
lack of service of process and therefore asserted that she was refiling the 2021
complaint pursuant to the savings statute at G.L. 1956 § 9-1-22.
-1- The defendant moved to dismiss the 2021 complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the 2021 complaint was
time-barred and ineligible for the protections of the safe-harbor provisions of the
savings statute due to voluntary discontinuance of the 2017 complaint. A justice of
the Superior Court granted the motion and plaintiff timely appealed.
Ms. Boulais raises two issues for this Court: (1) whether the trial court erred
when it determined that the savings statute did not shield the 2021 complaint from
dismissal; and (2) whether the statute of limitations prevents the instant action from
going forward. The plaintiff does not, however, offer any legal analysis or
substantive discussion of the issues. This Court “deems an issue waived when a
party simply states an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion
thereof.” Palange v. Palange, 243 A.3d 783, 785 (R.I. 2021) (mem.) (quoting
Broccoli v. Manning, 208 A.3d 1146, 1149 (R.I. 2019)). We “will not search the
record to substantiate that which a party alleges.” Id. (quoting Giammarco v.
Giammarco, 151 A.3d 1220, 1222 (R.I. 2017)).
Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the
hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Article I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court
Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in part, that “[p]romptly after filing the
notice of appeal the appellant shall comply with the provisions of Rule 10(b) or (c)
and shall take any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit
-2- the record.” Art. I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court Rules. The plaintiff, as the
appellant, must “ensure that the record is complete and ready for transmission.”
Small Business Loan Fund Corporation v. Gallant, 795 A.2d 531, 532 (R.I. 2002)
(quoting Procopio v. PRM Concrete Corporation, 711 A.2d 650, 651 (R.I. 1998)
(mem.)). In the absence of a transcript, this Court cannot determine how the trial
justice came to a decision or, in turn, whether the trial justice erred in coming to that
decision. See 731 Airport Associates, LP v. H & M Realty Associates, LLC, 799 A.2d
279, 282 (R.I. 2002) (“The deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal without
providing the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court is risky
business.”). Consequently, we have “no alternative but to deny the appeal and
uphold the trial justice’s findings.” Palange, 243 A.3d at 784 (quoting Calise v.
Curtin, 900 A.2d 1164, 1169 (R.I. 2006)).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court and return the record
to the Superior Court.
Entered as an Order of this Court this ______ day of January, 2024.
By Order,
______________________ Clerk
-3- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case Tara Boulais v. Maria DiPaola.
No. 2022-288-Appeal. Case Number (PC 21-5947)
Date Order Filed January 11, 2024
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Kevin F. McHugh
For Plaintiff:
David Kreutter, Esq. Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendant:
Melody A. Alger, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tara Boulais v. Maria DiPaola, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tara-boulais-v-maria-dipaola-ri-2024.