Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Massachusetts newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (August 26, 2020, 5:42 PM EDT ) Landlords lost their bid to block a temporary ban on most Massachusetts evictions Wednesday, as a state court judge ruled that the law enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic is necessary to protect public health and within the legislature's power in a time of crisis.
Superior Court Justice Paul D. Wilson granted the state a win in a dispute that is playing out simultaneously in both state and federal court. In a 34-page order denying the landlord's preliminary injunction motion, he found that state Supreme Judicial Court precedent says temporarily halting evictions is constitutional and that the law does not infringe on the powers of the courts.
"The Eviction Moratorium Law regulates not how the housing court decides cases, but rather when it decides cases," Justice Wilson wrote. "Plaintiffs have cited no authority for the proposition that the legislature cannot tell the judiciary when it can adjudicate a case."
He noted that landlords seeking to recoup rent or other damages from tenants still have avenues they can pursue, such as a breach of contract suit.
"The law temporarily limits one of the plaintiffs' possible means of resolving disputes with tenants who do not pay rent, that is, threat of eviction," Justice Wilson wrote.
He also found that the landlords could not show that the lack of rent payments is causing the kind of "irreparable harm" needed to satisfy the requirements for an injunction.
"The only harm suggested by the plaintiffs is not irreparable because it is economic," the judge wrote. "And even the economic harm described by plaintiffs, while painful, falls far short of the showing required to justify an injunction over matters of money."
Public health interests also factored into the judge's ruling, as he wrote stable housing is a critical component to containing the spread of COVID-19. The state has argued that if the moratorium were to expire, a rash of eviction proceedings could follow, potentially leaving people homeless in the midst of a pandemic.
"Even those lucky enough to have someplace to move will inevitably increase their potential exposure to COVID, by the mere fact of searching for housing, moving their possessions and, often, doubling up in overcrowded apartments," Justice Wilson wrote.
An attorney for the landlords, Richard Vetstein of Vetstein Law Group PC, said in an interview Wednesday he was disappointed by the ruling and felt Justice Wilson gave too much deference to the state. He noted that a preliminary injunction motion on his clients' federal claims remains pending before U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, with three days of hearings scheduled for next week.
"There comes a point where a delay becomes a denial and obviously constitutional rights are not quarantined, even during a pandemic," Vetstein said in reference to the nearly one month that passed between a hearing on the injunction and Wednesday's ruling.
"It's in contrast to how the federal judge is handling this," Vetstein said. "He seems much more skeptical of the constitutionality of the act."
Vetstein said the landlords' claims that their First Amendment rights to petition and free speech have been violated is a particularly strong argument. In hearings this week, during which Judge Wolf decided he would not abstain from hearing the case while it played out in state court, the judge also noted the entire act would fall if he were to grant an injunction on any of the federal claims.
"At a time when our residents are struggling financially, they need to know that they won't be kicked out of their homes," a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office said. "We are pleased with the court's decision to keep this moratorium in place and will continue our defense of this critical law."
The landlords will now appeal to the SJC, Vetstein said. Landlords Linda Smith and Mitchell Matorin filed the federal claims as part of an emergency appeal to the SJC back in May. The state's top court sent the matter to the Superior Court instead.
The landlords excised the federal claims from the state case and put them into the federal lawsuit with a different plaintiff, Marie Baptiste, along with Matorin.
Under Gov. Charlie Baker's recent extension, the moratorium, which halts most housing court proceedings during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, is set to lift Oct. 17, or 45 days after the state exits its pandemic state of emergency, whichever is sooner.
Vetstein said that the deadline is likely to be extended.
The landlords are represented by Richard D. Vetstein of Vetstein Law Group PC and Jordana R. Roubicek.
Massachusetts is represented by Jennifer E. Greaney, Pierce O. Cray and Richard Weitzel of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.
The state case is Matorin et al. v. Sullivan et al., case number 2084cv01334, in the Suffolk County Superior Court for Massachusetts. The federal case is Baptiste et al. v. Massachusetts et al., case number 1:20-cv-11335, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
--Additional reporting by Brian Dowling. Editing by Amy Rowe.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
