Opinion
No. 12–P–784.
2013-05-10
Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO v. KEYSPAN ENERGY DELIVERY.
The plaintiff did not appeal from either the judgment of dismissal or the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Instead, on March 23, 2007, the plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was summarily denied by the same judge. We emphasize that the plaintiff appeals only from the denial of the second motion for reconsideration. His brief, however, argues ten issues he seeks to present to this court, none of which discuss why the judge may have erred in dismissing the second motion. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal fails because his brief does not comply with the basic requirements of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a), as amended, 428 Mass. 1603 (1999). See Patel v. Amresco SBA Holdings, Inc., 69 Mass.App.Ct. 192, 197 (2007).
By the Court (TRAINOR, KATZMANN & SIKORA, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judge's denial of his second motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff sued the defendant in a dispute over the gas shutoff at his apartment. On February 6, 2007, the judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Ten days later, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The same judge denied the motion:
“After consideration, the motion is denied. Not only is the reason given for failure to appear insufficient, this case was in any event subject to dismissal pursuant to Stat.2004, c. 252, in that, on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds that the plaintiff's recovery, if any, was not likely to exceed $25,000.”
The plaintiff did not appeal from either the judgment of dismissal or the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Instead, on March 23, 2007, the plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was summarily denied by the same judge. We emphasize that the plaintiff appeals only from the denial of the second motion for reconsideration. His brief, however, argues ten issues he seeks to present to this court, none of which discuss why the judge may have erred in dismissing the second motion. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal fails because his brief does not comply with the basic requirements of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a), as amended, 428 Mass. 1603 (1999). See Patel v. Amresco SBA Holdings, Inc., 69 Mass.App.Ct. 192, 197 (2007).
Even if we ignore these deficiencies, the plaintiff's appeal would still be unsuccessful. “After the denial of one motion, a second motion based on the same grounds need not be entertained.” Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 600 (1940). If a judge has already denied a motion with a written, reasoned explanation, the movant should, in his second motion, specify the changed circumstances or the particular error that makes the initial ruling improper. See Audubon Hill South Condominium Assn. v. Community Assn. Underwriters of America, Inc., 82 Mass.App.Ct. 461, 470 (2012). The plaintiff has not done so here. Nor has he otherwise demonstrated that the judge abused his discretion in denying the second motion for reconsideration. We therefore affirm.
Order dated April 12, 2007, denying second motion for reconsideration affirmed.