Ellis E. v. Finn F.


NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 17-P-560 Appeals Court 17-P-1479 ELLIS E. vs. FINN F.1 (and a companion case2). Nos. 17-P-560 & 17-P-1479. Middlesex. December 4, 2018. - November 8, 2019. Present: Meade, Agnes, & Englander, JJ. Civil Harassment. Harassment Prevention. Protective Order. Complaint for protection from harassment filed in the Superior Court Department on June 8, 2016. The case was heard by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J. Michael R. Byrne & Robert J. Cordy for the defendant. Ellis E., pro se. Daniel J. Cloherty for President and Fellows of Harvard College. AGNES, J. The defendant and his employer, Harvard University (university), appeal from civil harassment prevention 1 The parties' names are pseudonyms. 2 The companion case is between the same parties. 2 orders issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E, ยง 3 (a).3 This case presents another opportunity for us to clarify the requirements for obtaining relief under that statute,4 as well as the scope of relief that is available. The plaintiff was a fifth-year graduate student in the Ph.D. program in the biological and biomedical sciences program (BBS program) at the university. The defendant is a professor and the director of the plaintiff's research laboratory (lab) at the university. The case involves the plaintiff's relationship with the defendant and other lab members. The plaintiff sought a c. 258E harassment prevention order against the defendant in June of 2016, alleging a series of actions described more fully in the discussion section, infra. In August of 2016 a Superior Court 3 As a preliminary matter, the plaintiff argues that the university is a nonparty that does not have standing to appeal. As discussed infra, however, the judge purported to add the university as a party and used the plaintiff's complaint for protection from harassment to impose obligations on the university. Under these circumstances, the defendant's employer certainly has standing to appeal. See Corbett v. Related Cos. Northeast, 424 Mass. 714, 718 (1997) (even nonparties have standing to appeal if they have "a direct, immediate and substantial interest that has been prejudiced by the judgment, and [have] participated in the underlying proceedings to such an extent that [they have] intervened 'in fact'"). 4 As we have previously noted, "[O]ur appellate courts have repeatedly held in appeals from issuance of orders under c. 258E that conduct that might be considered harassing, intimidating, or abusive in the colloquial sense" is not sufficient to support a harassment prevention order. A.R. v. L.C., 93 Mass. App. Ct. 758, 761 (2018). 3 judge found that the defendant had met the standards for harassment under G. L. c. 258E, and entered a harassment prevention order against him; in addition, the judge ordered that the plaintiff ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals