Padmanabhan v. Yout (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-090-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12266 BHARANIDHARAN PADMANABHAN vs. KIMBERLEY YOUT. May 26, 2017. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. The petitioner, Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. In 2013, the respondent, Kimberley Yout, commenced a product liability action in the Superior Court against Biogen Inc. and Elan Pharmaceuticals, LLC, related to a medication used to treat multiple sclerosis. She subsequently amended her complaint to include Padmanabhan, a medical doctor, and his company, Scleroplex, Inc., claiming medical malpractice stemming from Padmanabhan’s treatment of her multiple sclerosis with that medication. Padmanabhan moved to dismiss the claims against both him and, purportedly, Scleroplex, on several bases: that venue was improper, that service was improper and ineffective, and that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.[1] The motion was denied. Padmanabhan then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, which the single justice denied without a hearing. Because the trial court ruling from which Padmanabhan seeks relief — the denial of his motion to dismiss — is interlocutory, Padmanabhan’s appeal to this court is subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule requires an appellant to file a preliminary memorandum and appendix showing that “review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). Padmanabhan has not done so. Instead of filing a preliminary memorandum under the rule, he filed instead a full appellate brief. This failure to comply with the rule defeats the purpose of the rule and is basis alone for us to decline to disturb the single justice’s judgment. Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001).[2] More importantly, even in his brief he has not made a showing why review of the denial of his motion to dismiss cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court; he has not, in fact, even addressed the issue. This court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not a shortcut for the normal process of trial and appeal. See Foley v. Lowell Div. of […]