LARRY INOA v. PAMELA CASEY O'BRIEN & Others.

── LARRY INOA v. PAMELA CASEY O'BRIEN & Others. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-719 LARRY INOA vs. PAMELA CASEY O'BRIEN & others.1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The plaintiff appeals from orders of a single justice of this court denying (1) his motion to docket his appeal in this case late and (2) his motion to reconsider that denial. Because we discern neither an abuse of discretion nor other error in the challenged rulings, we affirm. Background. The appellant filed the underlying complaint in the Superior Court in 2021. In January 2022, after a hearing, a judge of the Superior Court allowed the defendants' 1Vinela Marmolejos, Christopher C. Harding, Theresa A. Bisenius, Mary Mcduald, Dina Carter, Geoffrey E. Snyder, Michelle A. Cristelb, and Randy J. Kaplan. As is our custom, we spell the defendants' names as they are set forth on the complaint. motions to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against them. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of dismissal and, on June 7, 2022, the Superior Court clerk sent notice of the assembly of the record to the parties and to the clerk of this court. The plaintiff failed to docket his appeal within the fourteen-day time limit established by Mass. R. A. P. 10 (a) (1), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1618 (2019) (rule 10 [a] [1]). In July 2022, this court sent notice of the plaintiff's failure to docket the appeal; the notice informed the parties that "[i]f an appellant . . . wishes to pursue the appeal, the party must file a motion to the single justice for leave to docket the appeal late." The plaintiff did not file such a motion until nearly three years later, on May 6, 2025. Presented with the motion, the single justice found that the plaintiff had "failed to establish excusable neglect and at least one meritorious appellate issue," and denied the motion. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, but the single justice denied the motion based on his conclusion that the plaintiff "failed to establish excusable neglect." This appeal followed. Discussion. Where an appellant fails to docket a civil appeal in the time permitted under rule 10 (a) (1), the appellant must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that the delay was caused by excusable neglect. See Howard v. Boston 2 Water & Sewer Comm'n, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 119, 122 (2019). "[E]xcusable neglect refers to circumstances that are unique or extraordinary, not to any garden-variety oversight" (quotations omitted). Id. at 123, quoting Shaev v. Alvord, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 910, 911 (2006). We review the action of the single justice on an appellant's motion to docket an appeal late for abuse of discretion. See Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 378 (1975). Here, the plaintiff argued that his delay amounted to excusable neglect for two reasons -- first, because he was self- represented at the time the deadline to e