Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Citation
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019) 4.
- Parent Document
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-02-25
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
Full Text
1,480 chars4. Retaliation. The plaintiffs maintain that the judge erroneously dismissed their retaliation claims under G. L. c. 186, § 18 (c. 186 retaliation claims), because their complaint sufficiently alleged "reprisal" and "constructive eviction" by Bell following the plaintiffs' reports to the board of health of Salem. Because the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Superior Court, their c. 186 retaliation claims are subject to G. L. c. 212, § 3, which states that an "action[ ] may proceed in the [Superior] [C]ourt only if there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will be less than or equal to $ 25,000." Consequently, "[i]f it appears to the court, from the statement of damages by the plaintiff that there is no reasonable likelihood that the estimated damages will be consistent with the civil money damage limits of the court, ... the judge, after receiving written responses from the parties and after a hearing, if requested by any party, may dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements ... regarding the amount necessary for proceeding in the superior court." G. L. c. 212, § 3A (b ). If the judge dismisses a case in accordance with G. L. c. 212, § 3A (b ), the plaintiff's "exclusive appellate remedy [is] by appeal, within seven days of notice of the dismissal, to the single justice" of the Appeals Court. Bussell v. Putnam Furniture Outlets, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 914, 915 (2003). See G. L. c. 212, § 3A (c ).