Appeals – Mandamus

Listen to this article

Where a single justice denied a petition for relief in the nature of mandamus, there was no abuse of discretion or error of law, as the petitioner has failed to show that she could not obtain review of the denial of her requested transfer on appeal following final judgment or in a petition for interlocutory relief.

“The petitioner, Kelechi Linardon, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying her petition for relief in the nature of mandamus. We affirm.

“In July 2025, RBP Hotel, LLC, doing business as Staybridge Suites (Staybridge), commenced a summary process action against Linardon in the Eastern Division of the Housing Court Department. On August 18, Linardon filed in the Housing Court a notice purporting to effect the automatic transfer of the case from the Housing Court to the Superior Court. The notice also requested that the record be assembled and transmitted to the Superior Court. A judge of the Housing Court denied the transfer sought by the notice, and Linardon’s case proceeded in the Housing Court.

“In September 2025, Linardon petitioned a single justice of this court, seeking relief in the nature of mandamus to compel the Housing Court to transfer the case. The single justice remanded the matter to the Housing Court for the issuance of written findings with respect to the denial of Linardon’s August 18 notice. In October 2025, the Housing Court judge issued written findings as to his denial. In his written findings, the Housing Court judge surveyed the statutes relied on by Linardon, as well as other potentially relevant statutes, and concluded that there was no statutory right or other appropriate basis for transferring the case to the Superior Court. After receiving the written findings, the single justice denied Linardon’s requests for relief.

“We discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in the single justice’s denial without a hearing of Linardon’s petition for relief in the nature of mandamus. … Here, Linardon has not shown that she could not obtain review of the denial of her requested transfer on appeal following final judgment or, if she wished, in a petition to a single justice of the Appeals Court for interlocutory relief under G.L.c. 231, §118, first par. …

“… Linardon’s petition sought mandamus on the ground that the Housing Court judge had a clear duty to transfer her case, which duty, Linardon argued, was based on G.L.c. 212, §4, and G.L.c. 231, §103. But the former does not provide for any automatic transfer and only describes the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. … And the latter specifies that it does not apply to summary process actions. … Linardon’s petition therefore did not establish a clear cut duty to transfer her case, and relief in the nature of mandamus was inappropriate.

“The judgment of the single justice is affirmed. We exercise our discretion to deny Staybridge’s motion for sanctions. In that motion, Staybridge requested as relief that an appeal bond be imposed and that Linardon be required to make use and occupancy payments during the pendency of any appeal. Since the commencement of this appeal, the Housing Court issued judgment in favor of Staybridge and an order requiring an appeal bond in the full amount of the underlying judgment. Moreover, use and occupancy payments previously were the subject of motion practice in the underlying Housing Court case and may be addressed there again should Linardon pursue any appeal from the underlying judgment. …”

Linardon v. Staybridge Suites (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-017-26) (4 pages) (Rescript) Kelechi Linardon, pro se; Anthony J. Coletti for the respondent (Docket No. SJC-13849) (March 2, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.