Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of employees’ (Employees) putative class action lawsuit brought against the corporate officers (Officers) of a ISIS Parenting, Inc. (Company), holding that the superior court judge properly granted the Officers’ motion to dismiss.After the Company abruptly ceased operations and terminated its entire workforce, the Employees brought a class action lawsuit against the Company in federal court alleging a violation of the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. 2101-2109 (WARN Act). After receiving a nearly $2 million default judgment, the Employees brought a putative class action lawsuit against the Officers in state court under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148 (Wage Act), alleging (1) the WARN Act damages constituted wrongfully withheld “earned wages” for which the Officers were liable; and (2) the Officers committed a breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Company by allowing the Company to violate the WARN Act. The superior court granted the Officers’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Employees’ complaint was properly dismissed because (1) WARN Act damages are not “earned wages” under the Wage Act; and (2) the Employees did not assert a viable claim for breach of fiduciary duties. View "Calixto v. Coughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that where Petitioner had the opportunity to obtain review of an adverse judgment in an appeal, the single justice did not commit a clear error of law or abuse her discretion in denying relief.Petitioner was divorced from Respondent pursuant to a judgment of divorce nisi. Thereafter, Respondent filed a complaint for modification of child support followed by a motion to set aside the property settlement in the divorce judgment. A judge allowed both requests for relief. Petitioner later sought extraordinary relief, which the single justice denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of alternative means of redress. View "Aktas v. Aktas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition for equitable relief, holding that the relief sought by Petitioner was not available.Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and escape. His consecutive committed sentences were to be served “from and after” sentences he was serving in federal prison in connection with offenses committed in the District of Columbia. After Petitioner was granted parole from federal prison he refused to be released because he did not want to return to Massachusetts to serve his “from and after” sentences. Although Petitioner had not yet begun serving his Massachusetts sentences, his petition sought an order requiring that he be considered for parole. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the relief Petitioner sought was not available because, among other things, he was not currently serving his Massachusetts sentences. View "Murray v. Massachusetts Parole Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court allowing the Commonwealth’s petition for relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 in this discovery dispute, holding that relief was properly granted.Defendant was charged with several offenses, and a judge in that court granted in part his motion for discovery from the Commonwealth. In its petition, the Commonwealth disputed a portion of that order that required the prosecutor to produce certain exculpatory information from the personnel files of the Boston Police Department and its internal affairs division. The single justice allowed the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice properly vacated the portion of the discovery order to the extent that it required the prosecutor to look through the internal affairs division file and/or other personnel files of the police department where the materials were not in the possession, custody, or control of the Commonwealth. View "Commonwealth v. Cruz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation and declined to grant extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument and that the supplemental instructions provided to the jury in response to a question the jury submitted during deliberations were not in error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor’s method of presenting grant jury testimony was flawed and that erroneous jury instructions entitled him to a reversal of his convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the prosecutor’s method of presenting the grand jury testimony was not in error and that the instruction the judge gave in response to the jury’s question was a correct statement of the law. View "Commonwealth v. Andrade" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the district court’s order dismissing a complaint issued against Defendant charging him with two counts of criminal harassment, holding that the series of acts outlined in the complaint that were attributed to Defendant satisfied the elements of criminal harassment.In allowing Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the district court judge concluded that the complaint did not allege three qualifying acts to support a charge of criminal harassment as to either named victim. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the complaint supplied probable cause to charge Defendant with two counts of criminal harassment. View "Commonwealth v. Brennan" on Justia Law

In this summary process eviction action the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the Housing Court allowing an execution to issue on Landlord’s representation that Tenant had violated a nonfinancial condition of the appeals bond, holding that the Housing Court judge’s order of execution of judgment for failure to comply with a nonfinancial condition of the bond was improper.Landlord served Tenant with a notice of termination of tenancy before bringing a summary process eviction action against her. Following a trial, Landlord received a judgment of execution, and the Housing Court judge allowed the execution to issue. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) a legally effective notice to quit is a condition precedent to a summary process action and part of the landlord’s prime facie case but is not jurisdictional; (2) the notice to quit in this case was not defective; (3) the Housing Court judge abused his discretion when, without providing advance notice that he would conduct trial on the same day as a scheduled hearing on Tenant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, he denied a volunteer attorney’s request for a continuance provided by Housing Court Standing Order 1-01; and (4) the judge lacked statutory authority to impose a nonfinancial condition on the appeals bond. View "Cambridge Street Realty, LLC v. Stewart" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice denying, without a hearing, Petitioner’s petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and application for “direct appellate review” purportedly under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that neither the petition nor the application was the proper means for Petitioner to get the review that he sought of his conviction.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of rape and of being a habitual offender. In both his petition and application, Petitioner raised issued related to the habitual offender conviction. After a single justice denied relief, Petitioner appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the issues raised were ones for which Petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy by way of direct appeal, and therefore, the single justice did not err in denying both the petition and the application. View "Barbosa v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court judge allowing Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that was found in plain view during a protective sweep on the basis that the officers’ entry into Defendant’s home was not justified based on exigent circumstances, holding that the judge properly found that the police created the exigency that prompted their warrantless entry into Defendant’s dwelling.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides greater protection than the Fourteenth Amendment where the police have relied on a reasonably foreseeable exigency to justify the warrantless entry into a dwelling; (2) under the circumstances of this case, the arrest of Defendant in his dwelling without a warrant was unreasonable; and (3) the Commonwealth waived the argument regarding whether, if the permissible observations from the affidavit were redacted, the search warrant was based on probable cause. View "Commonwealth v. Alexis" on Justia Law

In this appeal from a criminal proceeding, the Supreme Judicial Court discerned no reversible error but, under the unique circumstances of this case, exercised its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree to murder in the second degree, holding that a conviction of murder in the second degree was more consonant with justice.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to prove that the murder was deliberately premeditated; (2) trial counsel’s error in failing to admit Defendant’s medical records in evidence did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; and (3) an error in the prosecutor’s closing argument did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; and (4) where there was nothing to suggest that there was any ill will between Defendant and the victim and evidence of Defendant’s intoxication, Defendant’s first-degree murder verdict is vacated and a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree shall be entered. View "Commonwealth v. Salazar" on Justia Law