Two pro se litigants challenged the Superior Court’s denial of an extension to respond to a summary judgment motion and the subsequent entry of judgment against them. The plaintiffs had amended their complaint two months before a strict filing deadline, prompting the trial judge to grant a reluctant extension. After the defendant filed for summary judgment in February 2024, the plaintiffs filed motions to strike, stay, or defer the motion rather than respond on the merits. When the court ordered them to file an opposition within twenty-one days by June 2024, they requested another extension citing an internet outage.
The trial judge denied the extension and granted summary judgment when no response was filed. The plaintiffs then petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 211, section 3 for supervisory review of the interlocutory rulings. The single justice found the claims largely moot after the passage of over a year and noted that adequate appellate remedies existed had the plaintiffs pursued them. The court observed that the plaintiffs had eight months to prepare their own summary judgment submission and four months to oppose the defendant’s motion, yet sought only delays and extensions.
The petition was denied. No abuse of discretion appeared in the trial judge’s refusal to extend the deadline or in the ultimate grant of summary judgment.
The full text of the opinion follows below. Slip opinions are subject to formal revision; the official version is published in the official reports.
Eresian v. Superior Court (SJC-13775)
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date: November 7, 2025
Outcome: Judgment affirmed (petitioners’ appeal denied)
Key Facts
The Underlying Case:
- In 2022, Melanie and Eva Eresian filed complaints against Webster First Federal Credit Union in county court
- Cases were consolidated and transferred to Superior Court with strict scheduling deadlines
- Court set August 25, 2023 deadline for summary judgment motions, warning “no extensions will be granted absent extraordinary hardship”
- Petitioners amended their complaint two months before the deadline, adding numerous defendants, which resulted in a reluctant extension from the judge
The Summary Judgment Problem:
- Webster filed for summary judgment in February 2024
- Instead of responding, petitioners filed multiple motions to strike, stay, or defer ruling on Webster’s motion
- Court ordered petitioners to respond within 21 days (by June 2024)
- Petitioners requested another extension, citing a “town-wide Internet outage” that allegedly caused them to lose two weeks of work
- Judge denied the extension on June 26, 2024
- Two weeks later, judge granted Webster’s summary judgment motion because petitioners never filed a response
The Court’s Findings: The judge noted petitioners had:
- 8 months to prepare their own summary judgment motion
- 4 months to prepare opposition to Webster’s motion
- 21 additional days from May 28
- Yet filed nothing but requests for delays and extensions
The Appeal
After losing, the Eresians filed a G.L. c. 211, § 3 petition seeking supervisory review of various interlocutory rulings. The SJC denied relief because:
- Most claims were moot – over a year had passed since the challenged rulings
- Adequate alternative remedies existed – they could have pursued normal appeals but never did
- No abuse of discretion – the single justice properly declined to intervene
Bottom Line
This is a case about procedural failures by pro se litigants. The Eresians repeatedly sought extensions and delays rather than responding to Webster’s summary judgment motion, despite having many months to do so. When they lost, they tried to use supervisory review to challenge procedural rulings, but the SJC found no extraordinary circumstances warranting intervention.