Civil practice – Rule 60(b) – Interlocutory appeal

Listen to this article

Where a District Court judge allowed summary judgment in favor of the defendant and then vacated that ruling 56 days later, the judge had the authority to vacate his order sua sponte pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, so the defendant’s appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory under Chavoor v. Lewis, 383 Mass. 801, 804 (1981).

“The plaintiff, Josh Anyaosah, brought the underlying action against the defendant, Copart of Connecticut, Inc., for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of G.L.c. 93A, §9. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, a judge of the District Court allowed summary judgment in favor of the defendant. … Fifty-six days later, following a hearing, the judge vacated his ruling on summary judgment. The defendant appealed that decision to the Appellate Division of the District Court (Appellate Division). The Appellate Division ruled that the judge had the power to vacate his summary judgment decision pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974) (rule 60[b]), and dismissed the defendant’s appeal as interlocutory. The defendant appeals. Because we agree with the Appellate Division that the judge had the authority to vacate his order, we dismiss the defendant’s appeal as interlocutory, as required by Chavoor v. Lewis, 383 Mass. 801, 804 (1981). …

“… Although Chavoor concerned a judge’s allowance of a motion under rule 60 (b) — whereas here the parties agree that the judge acted under rule 60(b), but without an underlying motion — we do not see this distinction as significant to our analysis. Here, as in Chavoor, the issue is the scope of the judge’s power to vacate the judgment under rule 60(b). Specifically, we must decide whether the judge had the power to reconsider and vacate his summary judgment ruling sua sponte. If so, we must dismiss the defendant’s appeal ‘without any inquiry … into the merits of the judge’s decision.’ …

“The question of the judge’s authority under rule 60 (b) appears to be a question of first impression in Massachusetts. …

“The defendant argues that the words ‘on motion’ in the rule establish that a prerequisite to rule 60(b) relief is a motion from a party. Two Federal circuit courts — the Sixth and Tenth — have adopted this view. … But this is clearly a minority position. …

“The majority’s position holds sway here. … We agree that under rule 60(b), the judge had ‘the power to act in the interest of justice,’ … sua sponte, to reconsider and vacate his original ruling granting summary judgment for the defendant.”

Anyaosah v. Copart of Connecticut, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-075-25) (10 pages) (Wood, J.) A motion to dismiss was heard by Maurice R. Flynn III, J., and was reconsidered by him. Warren D. Hutchison for the defendant; Jay Odunukwe, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief (Docket No. 24-P-821) (Oct. 24, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.