Handbook of Civil Procedure in the Massachusetts District Court

HANDBOOK OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT SPECIAL ALERT New Requirements in Civil Actions in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, and the Superior Court Effective March 1, 2008 We are pleased to provide you with the following summary of important new requirements affecting every civil action in the 62 courts constituting the Massachusetts District Court and the eight courts constituting the Boston Municipal Court. One of the new requirements also affects money damage actions in the Superior Court. This summary has been prepared by Marc G. Perlin and John M. Connors, co-authors of the Handbook of Civil Procedure in the Massachusetts District Court, Third Edition. These requirements result from recent caselaw from the Supreme Judicial Court and a series of amendments to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, effective March 1, 2008. The rule changes apply to all “actions commenced on or after March 1, 2008, and, with respect to pending actions commenced on or after August 31, 2004 [the date that the statewide one-trial system became effective in Massachusetts], the amendments are applicable to procedural steps occurring on or after March 1, 2008” (Order of the Supreme Judicial Court dated November 28, 2007). The full text of the rule changes and the accompanying Reporter’s Notes are included with this Special Alert. A complete analysis of these changes, as well as all of the many other fundamental changes of the past five years, will be provided in the new edition of the Handbook that will be available later this year. 1. Clarification of the $25,000 “Procedural Amount” Requirement for Money Damage Actions in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, and the Superior Court. The recent decision by the Supreme Judicial Court in Sperounes v. Farese, 449 Mass. 800, 873 N.E.2d 239 (2007) affirmed several key features of the statewide one-trial system for money damage actions in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, and the Superior Court. This opinion also addressed ambiguities in the one-trial legislation regarding the $25,000 “procedural amount” limit. Here are the key points: • There is no monetary limit on District Court, Boston Municipal Court, and Superior Court subject matter jurisdiction in money damage cases. A plaintiff can seek, and the court can award, damages in any amount. • The relevant statute for the District Court and Boston Municipal Court, G.L. c. 218, § 19, sets forth a “procedural amount” requirement: A money damage action may proceed in the District Court or Boston Municipal Court “only if there is no reasonable likelihood that the recovery by the plaintiff will exceed $25,000.…” • If the defendant properly and timely asserts that the plaintiff has violated the procedural amount requirement in the District Court or Boston Municipal Court (see item 3, below) and the court agrees, the case must be dismissed. If the case is dismissed, the plaintiff may recommence the action in the Superior Court. • If the defendant does not timely raise the defense of improper procedural amount, this defense is waived. • Even if the defendant fails to raise the defense of improper procedural amount, the District Court or Boston Municipal Court judge, as a matter of discretion, may raise this issue sua sponte. And if, after soliciting “responses” and holding a hearing if requested, the court finds that there is a reasonable likelihood of recovery of more than $25,000, the court, as a matter of discretion, may dismiss the case. • If the court does raise the issue sua sponte, the Supreme Judicial Court in Sperounes mentioned the following factors the court “should” consider (and about which the parties can argue) in exercising its discretion to retain or dismiss the case: ♦ whether “the amount reasonably likely to be recovered by the plaintiff…is marginally or substantially higher than $25,000;” ♦ “whether the matter would be more appropriate for a jury of twelve or a jury of six;” ♦ “whether resolution of the matter will be substantially delayed by dismissal, or particularly costly to the parties because of the number of filings that will need to be repeated in the Superior Court;” ♦ “whether the action is similar in scope to those that fit within the $25,000 limitation;” and ♦ “other relevant factors presented by the parties.” • In the Superior Court, the relevant statute, G.L. c. 212, § 3, provides that a money damage action may proceed “only if there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will be less than or equal to $25,000 .…” 2 2. Other Important Points Regarding the Procedural Amount Requirement. • The procedural amount requirement does not apply to counterclaims. • The court’s determination of whether the procedural amount requirement has been satisfied or violated is to be based upon the statement of damages form or cover sheet that is filed together with the complaint. • There is no requirement that a clerk in the District Court or Boston Municipal Court identify and bring to a judge’s attention cases where a procedural amount violation is likely (e.g., where the plaintiff’s claim exceeds $25,000). Therefore “sum certain” cases in which the defendant defaults will go to judgment without coming before a judge, and the resulting judgment may not be subject to a later challenge based on the procedural amount requirement. 3. How a Defendant Raises the Procedural Amount Issue. A defendant who intends to raise the defense of improper procedural amount in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, or the Superior Court may do so either in the answer to the plaintiff’s complaint or in a motion to dismiss under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12, as amended effective March 1, 2008. Here are the important points in this rule change: • The defense of “improper amount of damages” has been added as a tenth ground for dismissal in Rule 12(b). Thus, a defendant may now seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(10). • This defense may be set forth in the defendant’s answer or in a pre-answer motion. • Under amended Rule 12(h), if the defense of improper amount of damages is not raised in the answer or a motion to dismiss, the defendant has waived the defense. • If the defendant has failed to raise the defense in the answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the defendant may be able nevertheless to raise the defense of improper amount of damages by means of an amendment pursuant to Rule 15. 4. New Requirement for Judges in the District Court and Boston Municipal Court to Make Written Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law in Jury-Waived Cases. Rule 52(c) of the Mass. R. Civ. P. has been amended, effective March 1, 2008, to require a judge in a jury-waived civil case in the District Court or Boston Municipal Court to make findings of fact and rulings of law “provided that any party submits before the beginning of any closing arguments proposed findings of fact and rulings of law.” 3 This change eliminates the often confusing procedure that has existed for many years of filing Requests for Rulings of Law (see item 5, below). Here are other key points: • The amended rule also provides that a party may submit supplemental proposed findings and rulings within three days (presumably within three days after the beginning of any closing arguments) “as long as that party, before the beginning of any closing arguments, has filed proposed findings and rulings and has made a request to file supplemental proposed findings and rulings.” • The proposed findings and rulings and any request to submit supplemental proposals may be contained in a single document. • It is not clear whether the court’s obligation to make written findings and rulings is limited just to the findings and rulings proposed by a party or whether the submission of any proposed finding or ruling triggers the court’s responsibility to make all findings and rulings relevant to its decision. 5. Repeal of Rule 64A, Requests for Rulings of Law. Rule 64A of the Mass. R. Civ. P., Requests for Rulings of Law in District Court, has been repealed, effective March 1, 2008. This means that the entire mechanism under that rule by which parties filed requests for rulings and by which judges either allowed or denied those requests has been abolished. It has been replaced by the fundamentally different procedure, described above in item 4, by which the court in jury-waived cases must make written findings of fact and rulings of law if proposed findings and rulings have been timely submitted. As a result of this change, a party’s appeal to the Appellate Division will most often consist of a challenge to the court’s rulings (and the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support its findings), rather than whether the court’s allowance or denial of a request for a ruling was proper. 6. Complete Text of Rule Changes and Reporter’s Notes. There have been other changes to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure effective March 1, 2008. The complete text of all of the changes and the Reporter’s Notes are set forth below. 4 Rule 1. SCOPE OF RULES [Sixth definition] “Municipal Court of the City of Boston” or “Boston Municipal Court” shall mean a division of the Boston Municipal Court Department of the Trial Court, or a session thereof for holding court. Reporter’s Notes – 2008 The definition of “Municipal Court of the City of Boston” has been amended in light of legislation in 2003 transferring various Divisions of the District Court Department located in Suffolk County to the Boston Municipal Court.

Load more