Harihar v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Full title: MOHAN A. HARIHAR v. U.S. BANK, N.A., & another.

Court: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Dec 9, 2014

13-P-1829 (Mass. App. Ct. Dec. 9, 2014)

Opinion

13-P-1829

12-09-2014

MOHAN A. HARIHAR v. U.S. BANK, N.A., & another.

By the Court (Kafker, Cohen & Vuono, JJ.), Clerk

NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

Before us is the plaintiff's appeal from two postjudgment orders: (1) an order entered on the Superior Court docket on August 14, 2013, denying the plaintiff's motion for a court order against the defendants and their counsel "to cease and desist from making false, unfounded statements against" the plaintiff; and (2) an order entered on the Superior Court docket on September 25, 2013, on the plaintiff's motion for clarification of statements made by counsel for the defendants.

As the appellant, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating error as to the orders from which he has appealed. Because he makes no arguments addressed to these orders, his briefing does not rise to the level of acceptable appellate argument. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975); Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 85-86 (1995). The orders entered August 14, 2013, and September 25, 2013, are therefore affirmed.²

2 Claiming that the plaintiff's appeal is frivolous, the defendants request an award of attorney's fees and costs as a sanction. We agree that the appeal is frivolous, as it fails to assert any basis for relief from the orders appealed. Accordingly, although we decline to award the defendants their attorney's fees, we conclude in our discretion that costs taxable pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 26, as amended, 378 Mass. 925 (1979), shall be doubled. See Mass.R.A.P. 25, as appearing in 376 Mass. 949 (1979).

So ordered.

By the Court (Kafker, Cohen & Vuono, JJ.³),

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------

Clerk Entered: December 9, 2014.