COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY NO. $J-2020-0442 MITCHELL MATORIN and LINDA SMITH v. ‘TIMOTHY SULLIVAN, in his official eapacity as Chief Justice of the Housing Court Department of the Trial Court, PAUL C. DAWLEY, in his official capacity as Chief Justice of the District Court Department of the Trial Court, JUDITH FABRICANT, in her official capacity as Chief Justice of the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HOUSING and ECONOMIC DEVLOPMENT, and the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ORDER OF TRANSFER Thave before me the plaintiffs’ complaint under G. L. ¢. 231A and G. L. ¢. 214, § 1, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Primarily the complaint seeks a declaration that Chapter 65 of the Acts of 2020, An Act Providing for a Moratorium on Evictions and Foreclosures during the COVID-19 Emergency, and the regulations promulgated under the act by the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, are unconstitutional. It also seeks an injunction against enforeement of the act and the regulations, as well as damages for what the plaintiffs allege is a taking of their property effected by the act. 1. This case is hereby transferred to the Suffolk Superior Court for disposition, pursuant toG. Lc. 211, § 4A, subject to appeal, if any, in the usual course, The Chief Justice of the Trial Court or the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, as may be appropriate, will designate a judge to preside over all aspects of the case, 2, The plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to add the two named tenants, the defendants’ partial opposition to that motion, and the plaintiffs" reply to the opposition are alsotransferred to the Superior Court as part of the case; as are the motion to intervene filed by City Life/Vida Urbana, Lynn United for Change, Springfield No One Leaves, and the Chelsea Collaborative, the plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion, and the defendants” response to the opposition. The Superior Court judge will rule on those motions in due course. [trust that the judge will afford all interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to be heard, either by allowing the motions to amend and to intervene, if appropriate, or, by allowing those individuals and organizations to participate as amici if they wish. 3. In addition to naming the Commonwealth and the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development as defendants, the complaint also names the Chief Justices of the Superior Court, District Court, and Housing Court, and cites this court's extraordinary power of general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, as a basis for granting relief against them, The only claim for relief specifically directed against the Chief Justices, however, is in par. 1] on p. 72 of the complaint. ‘The plaintfis ask this court to enjoin the Chief Justices from enforcing the portion of the act concerning summary process actions. That claim against the Chief Justices is wholly derivative of the plaintiffs’ claim against the Commonwealth that the act is unconstitutional. In other words, the plaintiffs assert no basis for enjoining the Chief Justices other than the alleged unconstitutionality of the act. The Chief Justices have collectively filed a “notice of nominal party status,” purportedly pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:22, Itis questionable whether that rule applies here. ‘The rule is designed for petitions under G. L. c. 211, § 3, that arise fom proceedings in a lower court and involve rulings by lower court judges. Such is not the situation here. ‘This action was commenced directly in the county court; it does not concern any lower court proceeding or lower court ruling.Regardless of the applicability of the rule, however, the Chief Justices are not necessary or appropriate parties in this matter, and I therefore dismiss them. If the plaintiffs prevail on their claim against the Commonwealth that the act is unconstitutional, we are confident that the Chief Justices will abide by that ruling and will not enforce the act in their courts, There is no need to enjoin the Chief Justices from enforcing acts are declared unconstitutional. Cf. Foster v. Commissioner of Correction (No. 2), 484 Mass. 1059, 1061-1062 (2020) (dismissing declaratory and injunetive claims against Governor where full relief could be obtained, if warranted, against other defendants, and because itis presumed that publie officials will abide by the law as declared by the courts) /siDavid A. Lowy David A. Lowy Associate Justice Entered: June 24, 2020