Opinion
No. 12–P–1515.
2013-11-6
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. Mohan A. HARIHAR.
By the Court (KANTROWITZ, SIKORA & HINES, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The pro se defendant, Mohan A. Harihar, disputes his postforeclosure summary process eviction from his former property located in Lowell. We affirm.
In May, 2011, U.S. Bank National Association (U.S.Bank) filed an action in the District Court to evict Harihar from his former property, which he refused to vacate despite the fact that the property had been sold through a foreclosure sale. In August, 2011, U.S. Bank filed a motion to transfer the matter to the Housing Court. U.S. Bank also filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Harihar failed to respond. A judge of the Housing Court allowed the motion for summary judgment.
Separate from this action, Harihar filed suit in Superior Court to enjoin his eviction. U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the Superior Court complaint for failure to state a claim under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). Harihar failed to respond, and a Superior Court judge allowed U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss. Harihar then filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Harihar's failure to file a timely notice of appeal from the allowance of the motion to dismiss renders that decision final, and no part of the Superior Court proceedings is before us for review. See Fergione v. Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical Sch. Dist., 396 Mass. 1015, 1015 (1986).
On appeal, Harihar contends that (1) his case was not properly transferred to the Housing Court; (2) the Housing Court judge failed to consider equitable preforeclosure loan modification claims; (3) the Housing Court judge failed to allow certain discovery; (4) U.S. Bank failed to establish the proper chain of title to the property; and (5) the decision of the Housing Court judge was premature given pending actions by the Attorneys General of various States in connection with the national mortgage crisis.
We need not consider Harihar's claims as he failed to comply with Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975), by failing to cite any legal authority in his brief or to make any reference to the record. See Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 81, 86 (1995) (brief that “does not contain a single citation to a case or statute ... does not rise to the level of acceptable appellate argument”). While we are sympathetic to Harihar's predicament, pro se litigants are “held to the same standards as litigants who are represented by counsel.” American Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 (1996).
Even if we were to consider Harihar's claims, he would fare no better. U.S. Bank's transfer of the case from the District Court to the Housing Court was proper under G.L. c. 185C, § 20. Furthermore, Harihar's failure to timely object to the transfer, coupled with his willingness to litigate his case in the Housing Court, runs counter to his argument.
Harihar also claims that the Housing Court judge denied him access to certain necessary discovery materials. “Litigants may be denied an opportunity for discovery if their complaints and affidavits have not made even a minimal showing warranting the requested discovery.” E.A. Miller, Inc. v. South Shore Bank, 405 Mass. 95, 100 (1989) (quotation omitted). To succeed, Harihar must show prejudicial error resulting from an abuse of discretion. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 46 Mass.App.Ct. 153, 160–161 (1999). Harihar has made no such showing.
Finally, Harihar contends that the Housing Court judge should have delayed his decision until other national lawsuits, brought by various States' Attorneys General relating to the national mortgage crisis, have been resolved. We have considered this argument, along with his others, and we disagree.
For these reasons, and for substantially those in the brief of U.S. Bank, we affirm the judgment of the Housing Court.
So ordered.