CourtSupreme Judicial Court
DocketSJC 13990
ReleasedNovember 5, 2026
Full opinionRead the full text of the decision
Question
May a party who unsuccessfully seeks interlocutory review of a trial court ruling under G.L. c. 231, § 118 immediately file a second petition under G.L. c. 211, § 3 challenging the same ruling?
Rule
Under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), a petitioner seeking relief from an interlocutory ruling of the trial court must “set forth the reasons why 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.”
“G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not provide a second opportunity as a matter of right for interlocutory relief, irrespective of whether it is couched as review of the adequacy of the order denying the G. L. c. 231, § 118, petition or as review of the underlying Superior Court orders.” Montanez v. Flahive, 484 Mass. 1009, 1009–1010 (2020).
A litigant who has already challenged a trial court ruling in a § 118 petition “was not entitled as of right to additional interlocutory review of that ruling pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.” Liriano v. Superior Court in Suffolk County, 497 Mass. 1028, 1030 (2026), quoting Anderson v. Panagiotopoulos, 480 Mass. 1031, 1032 (2018).
Holding
Latham filed a § 118 petition in the Appeals Court challenging the trial court’s allowance of a thirty-day extension. A single justice denied that petition. Six days later, Latham filed a G.L. c. 211, § 3 petition in the county court seeking review of the same ruling. The court held that Latham could not meet the burden imposed by Rule 2:21 because he had already challenged the trial court ruling through his § 118 petition. Having invoked one form of interlocutory review, he was not entitled as of right to a second round of interlocutory review under § 3. The court cited Liriano and Montanez for the proposition that § 3 does not create a right to serial interlocutory appeals.
Result
The judgment denying the G.L. c. 211, § 3 petition was affirmed. The court also denied Latham’s motion for attorney’s fees and an ex parte motion containing numerous requests for relief not presented to the single justice.
Players
- Court: Supreme Judicial Court, on direct appellate review from denial of G.L. c. 211, § 3 petition by single justice
- Opinion: Per curiam
- Petitioner-Appellant: Lincoln G. Latham, Jr. (pro se)
- Respondent: Aramark Corporation
- Below: Superior Court civil action commenced June 17, 2026; § 118 petition denied by single justice of Appeals Court; § 3 petition denied by single justice of SJC
Lincoln Latham, proceeding without a lawyer, learned the hard way that Massachusetts appellate procedure does not permit do-overs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of his petition for extraordinary relief, holding that a litigant who loses one round of interlocutory review cannot immediately seek a second bite at the apple under a different statute.
The Facts
On June 17, 2026, Latham filed a civil action in Superior Court against Aramark Corporation, seeking injunctive and equitable relief. Aramark moved for a thirty-day extension to respond to the complaint. Latham objected, but the trial court allowed the extension.
Latham then filed a petition in the Appeals Court under G.L. c. 231, § 118, which provides a mechanism for interlocutory review of certain trial court decisions. A single justice of the Appeals Court denied the petition. Six days later, Latham filed a second petition, this time invoking G.L. c. 211, § 3, the statute authorizing the Supreme Judicial Court to exercise general superintendence over lower courts. A single justice of the SJC denied that petition without a hearing. Latham appealed.
The Procedural Barrier
The court turned to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, which governs petitions seeking relief from interlocutory rulings. The rule requires a petitioner to explain why adequate review cannot be obtained on appeal from a final judgment or through other available means. Latham filed a memorandum and appendix under the rule, but the court found he could not meet the burden.
The reason was simple: Latham had already invoked an available means of review when he filed his § 118 petition in the Appeals Court. The single justice there considered his challenge to the thirty-day extension and rejected it. That ended the matter.
No Second Chance
The court relied on Liriano v. Superior Court in Suffolk County, a 2026 decision holding that a party who challenges a trial court ruling in a § 118 petition is not entitled as of right to additional interlocutory review under § 3. The court also cited Montanez v. Flahive, a 2020 case establishing that § 3 does not provide a second opportunity for interlocutory relief, whether framed as review of the order denying the § 118 petition or as review of the underlying trial court order.
Latham’s petition fell squarely within this rule. He had exercised his right to interlocutory review through the § 118 petition. The fact that the Appeals Court single justice denied relief did not entitle him to a fresh round of review in the Supreme Judicial Court. The procedural rules do not permit serial interlocutory appeals challenging the same ruling.
Additional Motions Denied
Latham also filed an ex parte motion titled “Ex Parte Motion to Remove Guest from Hotel,” which contained numerous requests for relief that he had not presented to the single justice. The court denied the motion, citing the longstanding principle that it does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. The court also denied Latham’s request for attorney’s fees.
After Latham filed his memorandum and appendix, he filed a brief and a motion to file a nonconforming brief. Because Rule 2:21 applies to this type of petition, the court did not consider the brief and did not rule on the related motion.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the boundaries of interlocutory review in Massachusetts. The appellate courts have long maintained that interlocutory appeals are the exception, not the rule. Parties dissatisfied with trial court rulings ordinarily must wait until final judgment to seek appellate review. When the legislature or the rules create a pathway for interlocutory review, as with § 118 petitions, that pathway comes with limits.
The holding prevents litigants from forum-shopping among different forms of extraordinary relief. A party cannot lose a § 118 petition and then repackage the same challenge as a § 3 petition. This rule protects the orderly administration of justice and prevents the piecemeal litigation that would result if every interlocutory ruling could be challenged multiple times through different procedural mechanisms.
For practitioners, the lesson is clear: choose your vehicle for interlocutory review carefully. Once you invoke one form of extraordinary relief and a single justice rules against you, you cannot simply try again under a different statute. The denial of a § 118 petition forecloses a subsequent § 3 petition on the same issue. If interlocutory relief matters, make your best case the first time.
Read the full opinion: Latham v. Aramark Corporation (SJC-13990, November 5, 2026).