D.R. Peck Excavating, Inc. v. Machado, 116 N.E.3d 13

Machado performed work for a construction project; dispute arose over whether DRPE hired or owed him payment.
Machado sued DRPE in District Court under the small claims procedure; clerk‑magistrate and a subsequent jury both found for Machado, yielding a judgment > $8,000.
DRPE sought remittitur and asked the judge to report the case to the Appellate Division; both requests were denied.
DRPE filed a notice purporting to appeal to the Appellate Division and then petitioned a single justice under G. L. c. 211, § 3, claiming no other adequate remedy.
The single justice summarily denied the § 3 petition; DRPE appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which affirmed and imposed sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a single justice should grant extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, after final small claims judgment	DRPE: the District Court judges erred (denial of report, denial of right to appeal) and had no adequate remedy other than § 3 relief	Machado: DRPE had adequate alternative remedies and voluntarily proceeded in small claims, forfeiting regular appellate rights	Held: § 3 relief was unwarranted because DRPE had adequate alternatives (e.g., transfer to regular docket before trial); single justice correctly denied relief
Whether denial of a request to report to the Appellate Division is reviewable via § 3 petition	DRPE: denial of report and alleged procedural obstruction deprived it of appellate review	Machado: denial of report is not a basis for § 3 relief; procedural routes in District Court and re‑filing a notice of appeal were available	Held: § 3 was not the proper vehicle; District Court procedures and filing another notice of appeal would be appropriate remedies
Whether DRPE's appeal to SJC was frivolous warranting sanctions	DRPE: pursued appeal of single justice’s denial (largely focused on trial errors)	Machado: appeal was frivolous given clear precedent barring § 3 relief in these circumstances	Held: appeal was frivolous; sanction imposed — $500 to Machado plus double appellate costs

McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 178 (explains denial of § 3 petitions when adequate alternative remedies exist)
Albert v. Howard, 458 Mass. 1005 (small claims defendant who failed to seek transfer cannot later seek § 3 relief)
Christopher v. Porter, 450 Mass. 1007 (same principle on adequacy of alternative remedies)
Eresian v. Hall, 442 Mass. 1022 (small claims procedure limits appellate review rights)
Trust Ins. Co. v. Bruce at Park Chiropractic Clinic, 430 Mass. 607 (transfer option preserves appellate rights; limits on § 3 relief)
Daum v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 396 Mass. 1013 (discusses transfer from small claims to regular docket and consequences of not seeking transfer)
Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civ. Business in Suffolk Cnty., 472 Mass. 1017 (procedural route for correcting clerk or court refusal to process an appeal)
Avery v. Steele, 414 Mass. 450 (standards on frivolous appeals and sanctions)