The decision last October on various motions to dismiss was by a judge in Superior Court, and it would be this judge who would preside at trial. Posters who are MA lawyers can probably find the case on the court calendar and its status.They can appeal out of the SJC? To where? SCOTUS? What justification could they use to turn this into a federal case?
Neither Hook nor Rams Head (Chiofaro) can settle the remaining complaint by CLF. The issue is between CLF and the state. The city is not a party, so it is out of the picture.
If there is a trial at the Superior Court level, and either the CLF or the state are unhappy with the outcome, an appeal would be made to the Massachusetts Appeal Court. As I understand it, the Appeals Court is the second highest appeals court in Massachusetts, the highest being the Supreme Judicial Court.
There is no Federal issue, so no SCOTUS.
From the decision of the Superior Court with respect to CLF's complaints, reformatted and excerpted:
CLF Plaintiffs filed this action solely against the State Defendants. The CLF Complaint contains six claims:
Count I, which seeks a "Declaratory Judgment, [per] G.L. c.231, $$ 1 & 2," concerning "the legality of the [Department's] delegation of its statutory obligation to determine proper public purposes and other [Chapter 91] requirements to the Secretary and his municipal harbor planning process"; [The $$ is a pdf formatting copy error]
Count II, which seeks a "Declaratory Judgment Re: Illegal Rulemaking, [per] G.L. c. 30A";
Count III, which seeks a "Declaratory Judgment re Illegal MHP Approval Process";
Count IV, which is styled "Environmental Damage, G.L. c.214, $ 7A"; [The $ is a pdf formatting copy error]
Count V, which seeks an order of "Mandamus, [per] G.L. c.249, $ 5," directing the Commissioner "to execute his responsibilities and duties under [Chapter 91]";
and Count VI, which seeks an order of "Mandamus, [per] G.L. c. 249, $ 5," directing the Secretary "to comply with the Massachusetts APA [Administrative Procedures Act] when engaging in rulemaking as part of his MHP approval process."
[The judge in the Superior court tossed five of the six CLF counts.]
....the Court concludes that Count I of the CLF Complaint states a viable claim against the State Defendants and is not appropriate for dismissal at this time.
...For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Downtown MHP Declaratory Judgment Claims [II, III, IV] do not assert a plausible claim and must be dismissed
...As previously noted, mandamus simply is not available for such purposes. See Boston Med. Ctr. Corp, 463
Mass. at470. All of Plaintiffs' mandamus claims [V, VI] necessarily fail as a result.