JAMES LYONS v. DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN AND POLITICAL FINANCE (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, James Lyons, filed a complaint in the Essex Superior Court against the defendant, the director of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF), seeking a declaratory judgment and the release of records pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10 (public records law). A judge dismissed the declaratory judgment claim with prejudice for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the public records claim without prejudice for improper venue. We affirm.

Background. In December 2021, the plaintiff, a former chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party (MassGOP), complained to OCPF about a donation to a MassGOP committee candidate (OCPF complaint). OCPF initially investigated but then dismissed the plaintiff's OCPF complaint based on a determination that state committee races are not subject to its supervision. After receiving notice of the OCPF decision, on March 13, 2024, the plaintiff filed a public records request for all OCPF documents related to the investigation into his OCPF complaint. Initially, OCPF turned over many documents but withheld several categories. On June 5, 2024, after an order from the supervisor of public records, OCPF supplemented its response with a privilege log for the withheld documents. On August 28, 2024, the plaintiff filed his Superior Court complaint seeking a declaration that state committee races are within OCPF's purview. He also alleged that OCPF's document withholdings violated the public records law.

Discussion. “We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiff's favor, and determining whether the allegations plausibly suggest that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Lanier v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 490 Mass. 37, 43 (2022).

1. Declaratory judgment. All OCPF decisions are subject to judicial review under the provisions of G. L. c. 30A, § 14, governing judicial review of agency decisions. See G. L. c. 55, § 3; Collamore v. Office of Campaign & Political Fin., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 315, 322 (2006). A complainant seeking judicial review must file in the Superior Court within thirty days of notice of the final decision of the agency. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14. Here, although the plaintiff had notice of the OCPF decision on his administrative complaint no later than March 13, 2024, he did not file his complaint in Superior Court until August 28, 2024, well beyond the thirty-day time limit. The plaintiff contends that his claim for declaratory relief was not subject to this time limit because he did not seek judicial review of the OCPF decision but instead sought a legal interpretation “for future cases” and a personal “quest.”¹ We disagree.

The plaintiff's Superior Court complaint characterized the relief he was seeking as a “declaration the OCPF's ultimate reason for closing the case on his complaint was invalid.” He did not identify a single other past or present example where OCPF's interpretation of its supervisory limits was relevant. Although the plaintiff now attempts to recharacterize his action as a general question of legal interpretation, divorced from overturning the dismissal of his OCPF complaint, the substance of the declaration he sought was a challenge to the OCPF decision that he failed to timely appeal. See School Comm. of Franklin v. Commissioner of Educ., 395 Mass. 800, 807-808 (1985) (where thrust of action seeking declaratory judgment was aimed at setting aside particular agency decision, action was properly considered to have been brought pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14). Because declaratory judgment is not an appropriate form of relief for the plaintiff's challenge to OCPF's dismissal, the judge did not err by granting OCPF's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.² See Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974); Frawley v. Police Comm'r of Cambridge, 473 Mass. 716, 725 (2016) (declaratory judgment is not appropriate remedy to challenge adjudication of individual case); Pereira v. Commissioner of Social Servs., 432 Mass. 251, 252 n.3 (2000) (plaintiff cannot circumvent G. L. c. 30A, § 14, limitation period by framing action as one for declaratory judgment).

2. Public records law. The plaintiff concedes that he brought the public records law claim in the wrong venue.³ See G. L. c. 66, § 10A (c) (complaint for violation of public records law must be brought in Suffolk Superior Court). However, he argues that the judge was required to transfer the claim rather than dismiss it. We disagree.

“If an error in venue is discovered at any stage of the proceedings of a civil action in the supreme judicial or superior court, the court may, upon motion of either party, order the action ․ to be removed to the proper county” (emphasis added). G. L. c. 223, § 15. Here, the plaintiff did not move for a transfer or take any steps to cure the venue defect created when he filed the case in the Essex Superior Court. When addressing venue at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, counsel for the plaintiff noted that the judge could either dismiss the public records claim without prejudice or transfer it. Counsel further stated that those options were “the same” to the plaintiff, who would “be happy to move it” and “[had] no objection.” By failing to object or move for transfer, the plaintiff waived this issue. See Luppold v. Hanlon, 495 Mass. 148, 165 (2025).

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although we think it unlikely the plaintiff had standing to challenge the OCPF decision in his individual capacity, because we affirm the judge's dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we need not address the plaintiff's challenge to the judge's conclusion on this issue.

2.   Even if we were to accept the plaintiff's characterization of his claim as seeking to clarify OCPF's scope only for future cases, the judge properly declined to issue an advisory opinion. See Worcester Regional Retirement Bd. v. Public Employee Retirement Admin. Comm'n, 489 Mass. 94, 99 (2022) (court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss claim for declaratory judgment applying only to hypothetical future disputes); G. L. c. 231A, § 3.

3.   Because we affirm the judge's dismissal of the claim for declaratory relief, we do not address whether the joinder of the two claims could have allowed the plaintiff to proceed with both in Essex.