JACQUES E. MITRI v. MICHAEL C. MARGE & Another. ( 2023 )

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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 23.0 or 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
22-P-140
JACQUES E. MITRI
vs.
MICHAEL C. MARGE & another.1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Jacques Mitri, appeals from a Housing Court
judge's order denying his request for a preliminary injunction
against the defendants, Michael Marge and Christina Ferguson
Marge.2 We affirm.
Discussion. The plaintiff's appellate brief contains no
legal authorities and the factual record is difficult to
1 Christina C. Ferguson Marge.
2 The plaintiff applied for a temporary restraining order but the
court treated it as a request for preliminary injunction. The
matter properly is before us under G. L. c. 231, § 118, second
par. The plaintiff also purports to appeal from a February 12,
2021 order denying his motion for reconsideration and a December
23, 2021 order denying his motion for rehearing. Because he
makes no discernable argument addressing those orders in his
primary brief, those claims are waived and we need not consider
them further. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing
in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019); Tedeschi-Freij v. Percy Law Group,
P.C., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 772, 781 (2021) ("we need not consider
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief").
discern. We are therefore not required to address the
plaintiff's claims because they do not meet the requirements for
adequate appellate argument. See Halstrom v. Dube, 481 Mass.
480, 483 n.8 (2019); Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing
in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019) ("The argument shall contain . . . the
contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues
presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the
authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies").
We have nevertheless considered the claims, and we conclude
that they are without merit. We review the denial of a
preliminary injunction "to determine whether the judge abused
[his] discretion." Lieber v. President & Fellows of Harvard
College (No. 2), 488 Mass. 816, 821 (2022), quoting Commonwealth
v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 452 Mass. 733, 741 (2008). An abuse of
discretion occurs when the judge has made "a clear error of
judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the decision, such
that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable
alternatives" (quotation and citation omitted). L.L. v.
Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).
A judge may grant a preliminary injunction where the moving
party shows, among other factors, "that success is likely on the
merits" (citation omitted). Lieber, 488 Mass. at 821.
According to the record before us, this is the plaintiff's fifth
2
lawsuit challenging the validity of the 2011 foreclosure sale of
a property he previously owned in Holliston. In 2018, a Federal
District Court judge ruled that the foreclosure sale was valid
because the mortgage company conducted the sale in compliance
with Massachusetts law as it stood at the time. See Mitri vs.
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 15-cv-14178 (D.
Mass. Feb. 16, 2018). The United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit affirmed the ruling and the judgment. See
Mitri vs. Aurora Loan Servs., U.S. Ct. App., No. 18-2068 (1st
Cir. Aug. 22, 2019). The plaintiff filed several further
actions in the Superior Court and the Housing Court, again
contending that the foreclosure was invalid. None resulted in a
ruling in the plaintiff's favor.3
Accordingly, the plaintiff has no likelihood of succeeding
on the merits of any claim that relies on the foreclosure being
unlawful. The plaintiff also has not held title to the property
since 2011, and he apparently has not resided at or had any
other valid interest in the property for several years.4 His
3 The plaintiff's lawsuits included the following cases on the
Superior Court and the Housing Court dockets: Mitri vs. Golden
Gates Props., LLC, Mass. Super. Ct., No. 1981CV02765 (Middlesex
County October 4, 2019); Mitri vs. Golden Gates Props., LLC,
Central Hous. Ct., No. 19H85CV000859 (September 24, 2019); Mitri
vs. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, Mass. Super. Ct., No. 1981CV01921
(Middlesex County August 26, 2019 and October 4, 2019).
4 The Federal District Court judge's 2018 decision noted that the
plaintiff continued to reside at the property at that time, and
3
claims that the defendants violated eviction protection measures
related to the COVID-19 pandemic are therefore unfounded. The
judge appropriately weighed the factors relevant to the decision
and properly denied injunctive relief to the plaintiff.5 See
L.L., 470 Mass. at 185 n.27.
Order dated December 30,
2020, affirmed.
By the Court (Meade,
Wolohojian & Walsh, JJ.6),
Clerk
Entered: May 12, 2023.
granted summary judgment for Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the then-
owner of the property, on its counterclaim for possession. See
Mitri vs. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 15-cv-
14178 (D. Mass. Feb. 16, 2018). Nothing in the record suggests
the plaintiff has any present interest in the property.
5 We decline to exercise our discretion to award the appellees
double costs and appellate counsel fees. See Mass. R. A. P. 25,
as appearing in 481 Mass. 1654 (2019). We note, however, that
in 2019, the Superior Court prohibited the plaintiff from filing
any new action in that court based on the same dispute without
the court's prior authorization.
6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
4