Jones v. Boykan, 464 Mass. 285

1999 incident involving plaintiffs Joneses and Sierra Jones and Officer Boykan; 2003 complaint alleging assault, 1983 claim, and c. 93A claim; defendants never answered after proper service; default entered June 2004; damages award of $1,000,000 based on plaintiffs’ representations; motions under Rule 60(b) led to vacatur of damages and remand for new damages hearing; appeals court reinstated judgment against Boykan and city but remanded for damages assessment; amended default judgment adding Lucy Jones entered March 30, 2012; direct appellate review granted on limited issues; court remands for new damages hearing and discusses attorney’s fees and clerical correction timing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand for damages is proper given Rule 60(b) rulings	Jones seeks damages anew after vacating due to erroneous award	Boykan/City contend prior award adequate or error not remand-worthy	Remand for new damages assessment warranted
Whether the damages award had a proper evidentiary basis	Damages based on counsel’s representations and sheet amounts	Damages must be supported by competent evidence	Damages vacated; remand for evidence-based assessment required
Attorney’s fees and costs under §1988	Prevailing party entitlement for fees in civil rights action	Fees must be sought separately and plaintiffs failed to request appellate fees	No appellate attorney’s fees; may seek in Superior Court if prevailing on remand; costs awarded per prior order
Validity of amended default judgment (Lucy’s omission)	Amendment necessary to reflect all plaintiffs	amendments improperly entered post-appeal stay	Amendment premature; remand allows proper correction after rescript
Effect of potential statute-of-limitations and failure to state claim on damages	Complaint supports damages under §1983 and related claims	Some claims time-barred or insufficient to state relief	On remand, examine claims for viable relief; some defenses may bar recovery against city

Hermanson v. Szafarowicz, 457 Mass. 39 (2010) (rule 55(b)(2) requires some factual findings and damages basis)
Productora e Importadora de Papel, S.A. de C.V. v. Fleming, 376 Mass. 826 (1978) (postdefault action requires evaluating whether claims state a valid cause of action)
Nancy P. v. D’Amato, 401 Mass. 516 (1988) (well-pleaded facts admitted but must prove damages within scope of claims)
Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for §1983 not based on respondeat superior)
Abalan v. Abalan, 329 Mass. 182 (1952) (default judgment and waiver of affirmative defenses)
Pentucket Manor Chronic Hosp. v. Rate Setting Comm’n, 394 Mass. 233 (1985) (limits of post-judgment relief not a substitute for appellate review)