COULTER v. JAMSAN HOTEL MANAGEMENT INC (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The plaintiff, Jean Coulter, appearing pro se, brought suit in the Superior Court against a host of defendants seeking damages for claims including negligence, breach of contract, unfair and deceptive business practices, fraud, slander, and constitutional violations.³ After hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), Coulter's third amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on the grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief plausibly could be granted. That order, however, permitted Coulter to file a further amended complaint within sixty days. Fifty-seven days later, Coulter filed an “Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint,” and she attached a copy of her fourth amended complaint. A second judge, by margin endorsement on the defendant's opposition to that motion, ruled, “Even as revised, the [fourth amended] complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted {and certainly not relief of $25,000 or more). This case is hereby dismissed, with prejudice.” Judgment then entered. Within days of judgment entering, Coulter filed motions to amend the findings and for change of venue, which were both denied. Coulter timely appealed.

Discussion. On appeal, Coulter essentially argues that her complaint was erroneously dismissed and she was denied the opportunity to refile her complaint in the District Court, assuming that her claims did not meet the statutory minimum for the Superior Court. We are not persuaded.

In her argument on appeal, Coulter overlooks that the second judge was ruling on her motion to extend the deadline to file an amended complaint, and not on the fourth amended complaint itself. “Case management is committed to the discretion of the ․ judge, and we review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Eagle Fund, Ltd. v. Sarkans, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 79, 85 (2005).

Here, there was no abuse of discretion. The reasons for denying Coulter's motion to extend the deadline were well stated. Coulter's third and proposed fourth amended complaints are nearly the same ⁴ and, as properly determined by two separate judges, are equally deficient in their pleadings. See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (plaintiff must provide “factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)‘ an entitlement to relief” [citation omitted] ). Indeed, Coulter did not follow the first judge's instructions to file an amended complaint within sixty days and, as evidenced by the failures of the proposed fourth amended complaint, any further extension would have been futile.

Judgment affirmed.

Orders denying motions to amend the findings and for change of venue affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

3.   Coulter's allegations stem from an unsatisfactory stay at the Quality Inn & Suites in Lexington, where she was removed from her room based on extensive use of the hotel's complementary shuttle service.

4.   Coulter's fourth amended complaint added a discussion of contacts between herself and Travelocity.com.