Taylor-Cameron v. Walcott

116 N.E.3d 1210, 481 Mass. 1039
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 21, 2019
DocketSJC 12532
StatusPublished

This text of 116 N.E.3d 1210 (Taylor-Cameron v. Walcott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taylor-Cameron v. Walcott, 116 N.E.3d 1210, 481 Mass. 1039 (Mass. 2019).

Opinion

Deydania Taylor-Cameron appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, her petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Taylor-Cameron was the plaintiff in two actions against Janelle Walcott in the small claims session of the District Court. The clerk-magistrate offered to consolidate the two cases and transfer them to the regular civil docket. 1 Taylor-Cameron responded that she preferred to dismiss one action and proceed solely on the other. The clerk-magistrate repeatedly advised her that if she did so, the case would be dismissed with prejudice, and she would not be permitted to bring the same claims again. Taylor-Cameron stated that she understood, and she voluntarily dismissed that action. In the surviving action, after a hearing before a clerk-magistrate, she prevailed and was awarded single damages on her claim that Walcott violated the security deposit statute. Apparently unsatisfied with this result, Taylor-Cameron unsuccessfully filed motions seeking reconsideration in both cases. Taylor-Cameron's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition followed. We affirm.

"We review the single justice's denial of relief only to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion or an error of law." Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint , 477 Mass. 1010 , 1010, 75 N.E.3d 1110 (2017), citing Marides v. Rossi , 446 Mass. 1007 , 1007, 844 N.E.2d 611 (2006). "We have repeatedly stated that a plaintiff who chooses to proceed in the small claims session waives the right to appeal from any adverse judgment, and likewise is not entitled to invoke this court's extraordinary power of general superintendence in lieu of an appeal to compel review of the judgment." Zullo v. Culik Law P.C ., 467 Mass. 1009 , 1009, 5 N.E.3d 1203 (2014), and cases cited. See G. L. c. 218, § 23 ("A plaintiff beginning a cause under the [small claims] procedure shall be deemed to have waived a trial by jury and any right of appeal to a jury of six session in the district court department"). Where Taylor-Cameron chose to pursue the "simple, informal and inexpensive" small claims procedure, G. L. c. 218, § 21, the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying extraordinary relief.

Judgment affirmed .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint
75 N.E.3d 1110 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2017)
Marides v. Rossi
844 N.E.2d 611 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2006)
Zullo v. Culik Law P.C.
5 N.E.3d 1203 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 N.E.3d 1210, 481 Mass. 1039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-cameron-v-walcott-mass-2019.