844 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2016Background
- Phillips rented an apartment in Massachusetts, paid a $750 security deposit, and vacated in May 2013. ERM issued a Statement of Deposit Account (SODA) showing charges exceeding the deposit.
- Phillips sued ERM in state court (class action), alleging violations of the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 186, § 15B, including failure to provide an itemized list sworn under pains and penalties of perjury (§ 15B(4)(iii)) and failure to return the deposit within 30 days (§ 15B(6)(e)).
- District court found ERM violated § 15B(4)(iii) and § 15B(6)(b), which forfeits a landlord’s right to retain any of the deposit, and ordered return of the deposit less a small holdover-rent offset.
- The district court declined to award treble damages under § 15B(7), reasoning that § 15B(7) lists only some § 15B(6) clauses and does not include § 15B(6)(b), and treated any § 15B(6)(e) violation as resulting solely from the § 15B(6)(b) violation.
- The district court then denied class certification as moot. Phillips appealed, challenging the denial of § 15B(7) relief and the class-certification ruling.
- Because Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court guidance on how § 15B(4)(iii), § 15B(6)(b), § 15B(6)(e), and § 15B(7) interact is limited and unsettled, the First Circuit certified to the SJC the question whether a § 15B(6)(b) forfeiture also constitutes a § 15B(6)(e) failure to return the deposit that triggers § 15B(7) treble damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a violation of § 15B(4)(iii) that forfeits a landlord’s right to retain any portion of the deposit under § 15B(6)(b) also constitutes a failure to return the deposit within 30 days under § 15B(6)(e), thereby triggering treble damages under § 15B(7). | Phillips: A § 15B(6)(b) forfeiture necessarily means the landlord failed to return the deposit within 30 days (§ 15B(6)(e)); thus § 15B(7) treble damages apply. | ERM: A § 15B(6)(b) forfeiture is distinct from § 15B(6)(e); § 15B(7) lists only certain subsections and excludes (b) by deliberate choice, so treble damages do not apply. | First Circuit certified the question to the Massachusetts SJC as determinative and unsettled; it did not decide the merits and retained jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mellor v. Berman, 454 N.E.2d 907 (Mass. 1983) (SJC discussion of Security Deposit Law purpose and history)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 914 N.E.2d 931 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (interpreting noncompliant itemizations and applying § 15B(7) treble damages)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 971 N.E.2d 313 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (discussing Legislature’s deterrence purpose in § 15B enforcement)
- Ambrose v. New Eng. Ass'n of Schs. & Colls., Inc., 252 F.3d 488 (1st Cir. 2001) (standard for predicting state law outcomes)
- Easthampton Sav. Bank v. City of Springfield, 736 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2013) (standards and considerations for certifying questions to a state supreme court)
- Blum v. Holder, 744 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 2014) (statutory interpretation principle avoiding redundancy)
- Bos. Gas Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 529 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2008) (criteria for certifying state-law questions)