Start with Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. In Massachusetts, Massachusetts calls the opening paper a complaint. Self-represented parties file in Superior Court (District Court / Boston Municipal Court for many civil cases). Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations generally must appear by Massachusetts counsel. That is the question this guide answers for filing a lawsuit without a lawyer. E-filing: eFileMA / Odyssey File & Serve. E-filing is expanding across Trial Court departments; small claims often remains paper-friendly. Confirm department-specific standing orders. Service: Mass. R. Civ. P. 4; G.L. c. 223. Small claims: District Court / BMC small-claims session (generally up to $7,000).
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in Massachusetts?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in Massachusetts
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- Massachusetts case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in Massachusetts |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning Massachusetts theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence / common-law evidence practice.
How the Massachusetts rule applies
Apply the Massachusetts authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
A person in Massachusetts wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations generally must appear by Massachusetts counsel.
- Draft a complaint and file it in Superior Court (District Court / Boston Municipal Court for many civil cases). E-filing: E-filing is expanding across Trial Court departments; small claims often remains paper-friendly. Confirm department-specific standing orders.
- Serve under Mass. R. Civ. P. 4; G.L. c. 223. Serve the summons and complaint under Rule 4 — deputy sheriff or constable personal service is common. File the return of service.
- Expect discovery under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26–37 govern discovery. Superior Court tracking orders set discovery deadlines. A jury demand follows Claim a jury under Mass. R. Civ. P. 38 and related statutes. Small claims are non-jury.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in Massachusetts. The evidence companion is the Massachusetts evidence guide.
Can you litigate pro se in Massachusetts?
Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations generally must appear by Massachusetts counsel.
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mass.gov Trial Court Law Libraries and self-help pages publish small-claims and civil forms.
Massachusetts opinions on pro se practice
Mary Mmoe vs. Commonwealth & Others
Mary Mmoe vs. Commonwealth & Others, 393 Mass. 617 (1985)
…, however, the plaintiff, a law school graduate who appears pro se, amended her complaint. The amended complaint has 35 pages and contains 174 numbered paragraphs separated into 30 counts. Alleging that the amended complaint failed to comply with rules 8 (a) & (e), and 10 (b), the defendants moved for dismissal. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 41 (b) (2), 365 Mass. 803 (1974). In relevant…
Massachusetts opinions such as Mary Mmoe vs. Commonwealth & Others are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "The amended complaint has 35 pages and contains 174 numbered paragraphs separated into 30 counts. Alleging that the amended complaint failed to comply with rules 8 (a) & (e), and 10 (b), the defendants moved for dismissal. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 41 (b) (2), 365 Mass. 803 (1974)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Carlos A. Brossard vs. West Roxbury Division of the District Court Department & Others
…v. Labor Relations Comm’n, 412 Mass. 164, 170 n. 11 (1992) (pro se litigants bound by same rules of procedure as litigants represented by counsel); Mmoe v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 617, 620 (1985) (although some leniency is appropriate in determining whether pro se complaint meets requirements of Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, rules bind pro se litigant as they bind oth…
Carlos A. Brossard vs. West Roxbury Division of the District Court Department & Others is worth reading on Massachusetts pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "Labor Relations Comm’n, 412 Mass. 164, 170 n. 11 (1992) (pro se litigants bound by same rules of procedure as litigants represented by counsel); Mmoe v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Bodhisattva Skandha vs. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civil Business in Suffolk County
…d, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Bodhisattva Skandha, pro se. That said, we can see no reason why the clerk in this case could have refused to accept Skandha’s motions. Skandha had the right to appeal from the dismissal of his original appeal and the right to seek assembly of a record for that purpose. See Elles v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Quincy, 450 Mass. 671, 673 (2008…
Practitioners open Bodhisattva Skandha vs. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civil Business in Suffolk County when Massachusetts pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Bodhisattva Skandha, pro se. That said, we can see no reason why the clerk in this case could have refused to accept Skandha’s motions. Skandha had the right to appeal from the dismissal of his original appeal and the right to seek assembly of a record for that purpose." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
I.S.H. v. M.D.B.
I.S.H. v. M.D.B., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 553 (2013)
…pt proceedings had begun against him. Thereafter he filed a pro se modification request, essentially denying the allegations of domestic abuse, claiming that he expected all matters to be dealt with in Florida, and contesting the substance of the order. He then hired counsel, who filed a motion pursuant to Mass.R.Dom.Rel.P. 60(b)(4) based on lack of jurisdiction. The probate ju…
Practitioners open I.S.H. v. M.D.B. when Massachusetts pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Thereafter he filed a pro se modification request, essentially denying the allegations of domestic abuse, claiming that he expected all matters to be dealt with in Florida, and contesting the substance of the order. He then hired counsel, who filed a motion pursuant to Mass.R.Dom." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Wilshire Credit Corporation v. Jackie Jenkins Scott and Jackie Jenkins Scott v. Wilshire Credit Corporation
…demand were attached to Wilshire’s complaint. Scott, acting pro se, filed a Mass. R. Civ. R, Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss, which was denied. Scott thereafter filed a pro se answer with affirmative defenses alleging that there was no contractual privity between the parties and that Wilshire’s complaint failed to state an actionable claim. On March 25,1996, Wilshire filed a m…
On pro se, Wilshire Credit Corporation v. Jackie Jenkins Scott and Jackie Jenkins Scott v. Wilshire Credit Corporation speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "Wilshire’s complaint. Scott, acting pro se, filed a Mass. R. Civ. R, Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss, which was denied." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Mark Reznik v. Judith Friswell
Mark Reznik v. Judith Friswell, 2003 Mass. App. Div. 42 (2003)
…tary dismissal and costs. The record indicates that Reznik, pro se, commenced this negligence action on September 24, 2001 for injuries he allegedly sustained in an automobile accident with Friswell. The action itself appears to be, and certainly began as, a straightforward motor vehicle tort action. Yet by the time Friswell filed her motion to dismiss less than six months late…
On pro se, Mark Reznik v. Judith Friswell speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "The record indicates that Reznik, pro se, commenced this negligence action on September 24, 2001 for injuries he allegedly sustained in an automobile accident with Friswell. The action itself appears to be, and certainly began as, a straightforward motor vehicle tort action." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Mark A. Lowery, voluntary administrator v. Michael Resca & another
Mark A. Lowery, voluntary administrator v. Michael Resca & another, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 726 (2009)
…is a lawyer licensed in Massachusetts, has been proceeding pro se without any opposition or objection from the defendants, who are represented by the Attorney General’s office. Whether a voluntary administra*727tor can proceed pro se and, if so, under what circumstances, are questions that we have not yet answered. We note, however, that both we and the Supreme Judicial Court…
Massachusetts opinions such as Mark A. Lowery, voluntary administrator v. Michael Resca & another are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Massachusetts, has been proceeding pro se without any opposition or objection from the defendants, who are represented by the Attorney General’s office." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Verizon Yellow Pages Co. fka Bell Atlantic Yellow Pages Co. v. Sims& Sims, PC
…y partnership (“LLP”) may or may not represent the LLP in a pro se capacity and also testify as a key witness at trial. Compare Gorovitz v. Planning Bd. of Nantucket, 394 Mass. 246 (1985) (an attorney who is a general partner in an LP and a named party in litigation involving the LP may represent the LP on a pro se basis even though the attorney may expect to testify as a witne…
Practitioners open Verizon Yellow Pages Co. fka Bell Atlantic Yellow Pages Co. v. Sims& Sims, PC when Massachusetts pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "LLP”) may or may not represent the LLP in a pro se capacity and also testify as a key witness at trial. Compare Gorovitz v. Planning Bd. of Nantucket, 394 Mass." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Claim a jury under Mass. R. Civ. P. 38 and related statutes. Small claims are non-jury.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (District Court / BMC small-claims session) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In Massachusetts the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a complaint. It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (Superior Court (District Court / Boston Municipal Court for many civil cases) or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
Massachusetts pleadings opinions
Christine Madsen vs. Robert Erwin & Others, Trustees, & Others
Christine Madsen vs. Robert Erwin & Others, Trustees, & Others, 395 Mass. 715 (1985)
….” All defendants except the one unnamed defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss And/Or For Summary Judgment” under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), and 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974). The motion was accompanied by a brief and affidavits. A judge of the Superior Court denied this motion, without issuing a written order or memorandum. The defendants subsequently filed a…
Christine Madsen vs. Robert Erwin & Others, Trustees, & Others is worth reading on Massachusetts pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "All defendants except the one unnamed defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss And/Or For Summary Judgment” under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), and 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974). The motion was accompanied by a brief and affidavits." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Bernadette White & Another vs. Peabody Construction Co., Inc. & Another
Bernadette White & Another vs. Peabody Construction Co., Inc. & Another, 386 Mass. 121 (1982)
…intiffs gave as grounds for the motion that the defendants’ motion to dismiss had raised the statute of limitations only with respect to the negligence counts. On February 27, 1981, the plaintiffs filed a “motion for relief from judgment or order,” see Mass. R. Civ. P. *125 60 (b) (1), (4), & (6), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), on the ground of surprise, citing as reasons therefor that…
Practitioners open Bernadette White & Another vs. Peabody Construction Co., Inc. & Another when Massachusetts pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "On February 27, 1981, the plaintiffs filed a “motion for relief from judgment or order,” see Mass. R. Civ. P. *125 60 (b) (1), (4), & (6), 365 Mass." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Harvard Law School Coalition for Civil Rights & Others vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College
…he party whose claims have been dismissed. . . . Further, a motion to dismiss a complaint . . . should not be allowed unless it appears certain that the complaining party is not entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim” (citations omitted). Rae v. Air-Speed, Inc., 386 Mass. 187, 191 (1982). 2. Standing under G. L. c. 151B. The pl…
Practitioners open Harvard Law School Coalition for Civil Rights & Others vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College when Massachusetts pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Further, a motion to dismiss a complaint . . . should not be allowed unless it appears certain that the complaining party is not entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim” (citations omitted). Rae v. Air-Speed, Inc., 386 Mass." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Joao M. Raposo & another v. Danny M. Evans
Joao M. Raposo & another v. Danny M. Evans, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 379 (2008)
…opriety of the denial, on waiver grounds, of Evans’s second motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process. Evans argues on appeal that (1) the Superior Court judge *380erred by denying the motion to dismiss because the defense of insufficiency of service of process had not been waived; and (2) service was insufficient under Mass.R.Civ.P. 4, as amended, 402 Mass. 140…
Practitioners open Joao M. Raposo & another v. Danny M. Evans when Massachusetts pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Evans’s second motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Commonwealth vs. College Pro Painters (U.S.) Ltd. (And a Companion Case)
Commonwealth vs. College Pro Painters (U.S.) Ltd. (And a Companion Case), 418 Mass. 726 (1994)
…ay 12, 1993, a District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaints. The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal dated May 17, 1993. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. The principal question before us is whether § 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. § 667 (1988), preempts 454 Code Mass. Regs. § 11.03 (2)…
Massachusetts opinions such as Commonwealth vs. College Pro Painters (U.S.) Ltd. (And a Companion Case) are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaints. The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal dated May 17, 1993. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Diane L. Shemeth v. Michael S. Ferguson, and others
Diane L. Shemeth v. Michael S. Ferguson, and others, 2003 Mass. App. Div. 54 (2003)
…ctice and a violation of G.L.c. 93A. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the court treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and allowed, ordering the complaint to be dismissed. The plaintiff appeals from that ruling. 1. Background. The plaintiff was injured as a passenger on a cruise ship in January 1994, and hired the defendant…
Massachusetts opinions such as Diane L. Shemeth v. Michael S. Ferguson, and others are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "G.L.c. 93A. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the court treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and allowed, ordering the complaint to be dismissed. The plaintiff appeals from that ruling. 1. Background." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
U.S. Trust Company v. Henry Carreiro
U.S. Trust Company v. Henry Carreiro, 2000 Mass. App. Div. 159 (2000)
…he plaintiff appeals from the motion judge’s allowance of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 12(b) (6). The crux of the motion to dismiss was that the plaintiffs complaint was filed to collect on a deficiency after repossession of an automobile pursuant to G.L.c. 255B, Sections 20A and B, and that…
Practitioners open U.S. Trust Company v. Henry Carreiro when Massachusetts pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 12(b) (6). The crux of the motion to dismiss was that the plaintiffs complaint was filed to collect on a deficiency after repossession of an automobile pursuant to G.L.c." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
How to file and serve in Massachusetts
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: Superior Court (District Court / Boston Municipal Court for many civil cases) for larger or complex civil cases; District Court / BMC small-claims session when your claim fits generally up to $7,000.
- Prepare the complaint (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as Massachusetts practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: Mass. R. Civ. P. 4; G.L. c. 223.
Serve the summons and complaint under Rule 4 — deputy sheriff or constable personal service is common. File the return of service.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
Massachusetts service opinions
Joao M. Raposo & another v. Danny M. Evans
Joao M. Raposo & another v. Danny M. Evans, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 379 (2008)
…s, of Evans’s second motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process. Evans argues on appeal that (1) the Superior Court judge *380erred by denying the motion to dismiss because the defense of insufficiency of service of process had not been waived; and (2) service was insufficient under Mass.R.Civ.P. 4, as amended, 402 Mass. 1401 (1988). We affirm. Background. This c…
Massachusetts opinions such as Joao M. Raposo & another v. Danny M. Evans are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Evans’s second motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
New England Die Cutting, Inc. v. Charles F. O'Neil
New England Die Cutting, Inc. v. Charles F. O'Neil, 1997 Mass. App. Div. 6 (1997)
…rsonal jurisdiction over the defendant because of a lack of service of process is void from its inception, Bowers v. Board of Appeals of Marshfield, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 29, 32 (1983); Metivier v. McDonald’s Corp., 16 Mass. App. Ct. 916, 918 (1983), and the defendant is entitled to relief from such void judgment pursuit to Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 60(b) (4). Farley v. Sprague, 374 M…
Practitioners open New England Die Cutting, Inc. v. Charles F. O'Neil when Massachusetts service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Bowers v. Board of Appeals of Marshfield, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 29, 32 (1983); Metivier v. McDonald’s Corp., 16 Mass. App. Ct. 916, 918 (1983), and the defendant is entitled to relief from such void judgment pursuit to Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 60(b) (4). Farley v." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Joanna Siodis v. Louise A. Spate, and another
Joanna Siodis v. Louise A. Spate, and another, 1999 Mass. App. Div. 148 (1999)
…. Civ. R, Rule 12(b) (5) motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, and the denial of the plaintiff’s subsequent motions, including a request for an extension of time to effect service. The facts are not in dispute. On December 5, 1994, plaintiff Joanna Siodis, a pedestrian, was struck by an automobile driven by defendant Louise Spate (“Spate”). The incident occurre…
Massachusetts opinions such as Joanna Siodis v. Louise A. Spate, and another are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Civ. R, Rule 12(b) (5) motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, and the denial of the plaintiff’s subsequent motions, including a request for an extension of time to effect service. The facts are not in dispute." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Franklin Nunez, and others v. U-Haul Company of Nevada, Inc.
Franklin Nunez, and others v. U-Haul Company of Nevada, Inc., 1998 Mass. App. Div. 27 (1998)
…t and for reconsideration brought on the grounds of lack of service of process. The defendant thereafter appealed to this Division pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A., Rule 8B on the “Agreed Statement” of both parties. *28The accident occurred on March 11, 1995. As indicated, defendant U-Haul Nevada owned the vehicle which collided with the plaintiffs’ car. U-Haul Nevada is…
On service of process, Franklin Nunez, and others v. U-Haul Company of Nevada, Inc. speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "The defendant thereafter appealed to this Division pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A., Rule 8B on the “Agreed Statement” of both parties. *28The accident occurred on March 11, 1995." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Juanita F. McQuade v. Marilyn Q. McQuade
Juanita F. McQuade v. Marilyn Q. McQuade, 1997 Mass. App. Div. 53 (1997)
…e defenses of insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. Despite the assertion of these defenses, the plaintiff made no attempt to serve the defendant again or to perfect service in any other manner. Thereafter, both parties participated in discovery and a trial date was assigned. On June 20 1996, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to com…
On service of process, Juanita F. McQuade v. Marilyn Q. McQuade speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "Despite the assertion of these defenses, the plaintiff made no attempt to serve the defendant again or to perfect service in any other manner. Thereafter, both parties participated in discovery and a trial date was assigned." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Bernard G. Sykes v. Dish Network
Bernard G. Sykes v. Dish Network, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 58 (2005)
…in this action against “Dish Network” on January 17, 2003. Service of process was made on January 13,2003 by a deputy sheriff’s delivery of the summons and complaint in hand to a Scott Yanasch (“Vanasch”), who is described in the return of service as the “agent, person in charge at the time of service for Dish Network, 78H Olympia Ave., Woburn.” A copy of the summons and the c…
On service of process, Bernard G. Sykes v. Dish Network speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "Service of process was made on January 13,2003 by a deputy sheriff’s delivery of the summons and complaint in hand to a Scott Yanasch (“Vanasch”), who is described in the return of service as the “agent, person in charge at the time of service for Dish Network, 78H Olympia Ave." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Jaarah Salifu v. Steven M. Ward
Jaarah Salifu v. Steven M. Ward, 1998 Mass. App. Div. 273 (1998)
…the dismissal of her action on the grounds of insufficient service of process. The parties’ Rule 8B Agreed Statement indicates that on July 1,1994, the plaintiff sustained injuries when her vehicle was struck by the defendant’s vehicle in an intersection collision. On June 4, 1997, the plaintiff commenced this negligence action in the Woburn Division of the District Court Depa…
On service of process, Jaarah Salifu v. Steven M. Ward speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "The parties’ Rule 8B Agreed Statement indicates that on July 1,1994, the plaintiff sustained injuries when her vehicle was struck by the defendant’s vehicle in an intersection collision." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Cheryl Ward v. Edward P. McMahon
Cheryl Ward v. Edward P. McMahon, 2002 Mass. App. Div. 115 (2002)
…Civ. R, Rule 12(b) (5), motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The amended complaint alleges that between January, 1989 and June, 1990, the plaintiff made loans totaling $11,715.00 to the defendant for his use in a business venture. The defendant repaid $3,500.00 by malting thirty-five $100.00 payments, but stopped malting payments on January 15,1997. After the…
Practitioners open Cheryl Ward v. Edward P. McMahon when Massachusetts service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Civ. R, Rule 12(b) (5), motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The amended complaint alleges that between January, 1989 and June, 1990, the plaintiff made loans totaling $11,715.00 to the defendant for his use in a business venture. The defendant repaid $3,500." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Registering for e-filing
Massachusetts's primary electronic filing path is eFileMA / Odyssey File & Serve.
How to register: Create an eFileMA account through an approved provider, verify identity, and pay filing fees or seek a fee waiver (indigency affidavit).
Pro se reality check: E-filing is expanding across Trial Court departments; small claims often remains paper-friendly. Confirm department-specific standing orders.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In Massachusetts:
Mass. R. Civ. P. 26–37 govern discovery. Superior Court tracking orders set discovery deadlines.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
Massachusetts discovery opinions
Richard J. Sinnott vs. Boston Retirement Board & Others
Richard J. Sinnott vs. Boston Retirement Board & Others, 402 Mass. 581 (1988)
…e above noted motions and denied Sinnott’s motion to compel discovery. Applying the principles and considerations enunciated in Petition for the Promulgation of Rules Regarding the Protection of Confidential News Sources & Other Unpublished Information, 395 Mass. 164 (1985), the judge weighed Sinnott’s interest in obtaining the names of the individuals who allegedly wrongfully…
On discovery, Richard J. Sinnott vs. Boston Retirement Board & Others speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "Sinnott’s motion to compel discovery. Applying the principles and considerations enunciated in Petition for the Promulgation of Rules Regarding the Protection of Confidential News Sources & Other Unpublished Information, 395 Mass." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In the Matter of a Motion to Compel
In the Matter of a Motion to Compel (2023)
…compels an exception to the otherwise applicable general to discovery and shall be inadmissible in any criminal or civil proceeding." 2 We note that certain amendments to the Uniform Act and G. L. c. 233, § 20J, took effect during the pendency of this case. See St. 2022, c. 127, § 36; St. 2022, c. 175, §§ 48A, 55. Those changes are not at issue here. 4 rule of R.I. Grand Jury S…
In the Matter of a Motion to Compel is worth reading on Massachusetts discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "We note that certain amendments to the Uniform Act and G. L. c. 233, § 20J, took effect during the pendency of this case. See St. 2022, c. 127, § 36; St. 2022, c. 175, §§ 48A, 55. Those changes are not at issue here. 4 rule of R.I." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Tommy Royal and Bernadette Costa, Individually and on Behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals v. Judgment
…oof discussed above with respect to Royal. 2.3. No Right to Discovery. In its reply memorandum, JAU for the first time seeks leave to conduct discovery on its own chain of title before the Court decided JAU’s motion to compel arbitration. This request makes no sense. The Court will exercise its discretion not to delay resolution of this motion pending some unexplained course of…
On discovery, Tommy Royal and Bernadette Costa, Individually and on Behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals v. Judgment speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "Royal. 2.3. No Right to Discovery. In its reply memorandum, JAU for the first time seeks leave to conduct discovery on its own chain of title before the Court decided JAU’s motion to compel arbitration. This request makes no sense." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Neles-Jamesbury, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Neles-Jamesbury, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 646 (2006)
…to produce documents including copies of pleadings, written discovery, and documents exchanged by parties and produced by non-parties. 2. Fees and Reconsideration Massachusetts law provides, at the discretion of the court, for the award of “reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining” an order compelling discovery. Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). The two questions here are 1) whether the…
Neles-Jamesbury, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is worth reading on Massachusetts discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "Fees and Reconsideration Massachusetts law provides, at the discretion of the court, for the award of “reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining” an order compelling discovery. Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Gem Plumbing and Heating Services, LLC v. Rusty's, Inc; Michael J. Roderick; Thomas R. Hansen; Air Pros Ma, LLC
…oduce documents and otherwise participate in and respond to discovery requests on their behalf. Under Massachusetts law, a civil litigant may sometimes be required to produce documents held by a third party even if the litigant has no “legal right to control” the third party. See Strom v. American Honda Motor Co., 423 Mass. 330, 336 (1996). So long as there is reason to believe…
Practitioners open Gem Plumbing and Heating Services, LLC v. Rusty's, Inc; Michael J. Roderick; Thomas R. Hansen; Air Pros Ma, LLC when Massachusetts discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Under Massachusetts law, a civil litigant may sometimes be required to produce documents held by a third party even if the litigant has no “legal right to control” the third party. See Strom v. American Honda Motor Co., 423 Mass. 330, 336 (1996)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Cardno Chemrisk, LLC v. Cherri Foytlin
Cardno Chemrisk, LLC v. Cherri Foytlin, 33 Mass. L. Rptr. 489 (2016)
…uding those incurred for the special motion and any related discovery matters.” Id., para. 5. Accordingly, defendants contend that dismissal of the action is premature. In addition, defendants argue that if there were to be a voluntary dismissal of ChemRisk’s claims, such dismissal should be subject to the imposition of certain conditions. I agree that dismissal of the action w…
Practitioners open Cardno Chemrisk, LLC v. Cherri Foytlin when Massachusetts discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Id., para. 5. Accordingly, defendants contend that dismissal of the action is premature. In addition, defendants argue that if there were to be a voluntary dismissal of ChemRisk’s claims, such dismissal should be subject to the imposition of certain conditions." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Visiting Nurse Association of S.E. Mass., Inc. v. Joseph Souza
Visiting Nurse Association of S.E. Mass., Inc. v. Joseph Souza, 1994 Mass. App. Div. 214 (1994)
…nd ability to pay the judgment, the judgment creditor filed discovery requests seeking to have the judgment debtor answer interrogatories and produce certain documents. When the judgment debtor failed to reply to the discovery requests, the judgment creditor filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories and a motion to compel the production of documents. These motions wer…
Visiting Nurse Association of S.E. Mass., Inc. v. Joseph Souza is worth reading on Massachusetts discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "When the judgment debtor failed to reply to the discovery requests, the judgment creditor filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories and a motion to compel the production of documents." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Randy Cipolleta v. Elaine Sharp
Randy Cipolleta v. Elaine Sharp, 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 483 (2001)
…setts State Police is allowed. II. The conduct and scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Solimene v. B. Grauel & Co., 399 Mass 790, 799 (1987). In the present case, Sharp’s subpoena duces tecum to the Department is, on its face, unduly vague and over broad. It is without limit as to time, even though the underlying action involves an identifiable…
Massachusetts opinions such as Randy Cipolleta v. Elaine Sharp are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "State Police is allowed. II. The conduct and scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Solimene v. B. Grauel & Co., 399 Mass 790, 799 (1987)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. Massachusetts applies the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence / common-law evidence practice. Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full Massachusetts walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: Massachusetts Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
Massachusetts summary-judgment opinions
Diane Kourouvacilis vs. General Motors Corporation & Another
Diane Kourouvacilis vs. General Motors Corporation & Another, 410 Mass. 706 (1991)
…ollowing discovery, another judge allowed Avis’s motion for summary judgment on the counts alleging Avis’s negligence and its violation of c. 93A, § 2, and c. 231, § 85J. Those counts, too, were dismissed. At that point the only remaining count against Avis asserted breach of warranty. Subsequently, a third judge allowed motions for summary judgment in both defendants’ favor wi…
Diane Kourouvacilis vs. General Motors Corporation & Another is worth reading on Massachusetts summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Avis’s motion for summary judgment on the counts alleging Avis’s negligence and its violation of c. 93A, § 2, and c. 231, § 85J. Those counts, too, were dismissed. At that point the only remaining count against Avis asserted breach of warranty." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Edith Pederson, Guardian Ad Litem, vs. Time, Inc., & Others
Edith Pederson, Guardian Ad Litem, vs. Time, Inc., & Others, 404 Mass. 14 (1989)
…mitations against her claims. The judge allowed motions for summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Time, Inc. (Time), Life Magazine (Life) reporter David Friend, photographer Michael O’Brien, and the Department of Mental Health. The guardian appealed the judgment to the Appeals Court. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We reverse the judgment. The gu…
Practitioners open Edith Pederson, Guardian Ad Litem, vs. Time, Inc., & Others when Massachusetts summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The judge allowed motions for summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Time, Inc. (Time), Life Magazine (Life) reporter David Friend, photographer Michael O’Brien, and the Department of Mental Health. The guardian appealed the judgment to the Appeals Court." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Robert Scott Riley vs. Walter M. Presnell
Robert Scott Riley vs. Walter M. Presnell, 409 Mass. 239 (1991)
…known that he may have been injured by his therapist. Thus, summary judgment in favor of the defendant was inappropriate. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand this case for a trial which shall include the issue of the statute of limitations. On April 10, 1986, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied. Several years later, before the…
Massachusetts opinions such as Robert Scott Riley vs. Walter M. Presnell are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "Thus, summary judgment in favor of the defendant was inappropriate. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand this case for a trial which shall include the issue of the statute of limitations." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Christine Madsen vs. Robert Erwin & Others, Trustees, & Others
Christine Madsen vs. Robert Erwin & Others, Trustees, & Others, 395 Mass. 715 (1985)
…one unnamed defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss And/Or For Summary Judgment” under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), and 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974). The motion was accompanied by a brief and affidavits. A judge of the Superior Court denied this motion, without issuing a written order or memorandum. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to report this interl…
Christine Madsen vs. Robert Erwin & Others, Trustees, & Others is worth reading on Massachusetts summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Motion to Dismiss And/Or For Summary Judgment” under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), and 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974). The motion was accompanied by a brief and affidavits." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
G.S. Enterprises, Inc. vs. Falmouth Marine, Inc.
G.S. Enterprises, Inc. vs. Falmouth Marine, Inc., 410 Mass. 262 (1991)
…ion of the defendant, Falmouth Marine, Inc. (FMI), for *263 summary judgment as to the two counts in the complaint. The judge concluded that the plaintiff, G.S. Enterprises, Inc. (GSEI), had failed to make a showing in support of its claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and violations of G. L. c. 93A (1988 ed.), claims based on EMI’s alleged improper in…
Practitioners open G.S. Enterprises, Inc. vs. Falmouth Marine, Inc. when Massachusetts summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Falmouth Marine, Inc. (FMI), for *263 summary judgment as to the two counts in the complaint. The judge concluded that the plaintiff, G.S. Enterprises, Inc." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Bernard E. Bulwer vs. Mount Auburn Hospital & Others
Bernard E. Bulwer vs. Mount Auburn Hospital & Others, 473 Mass. 672 (2016)
…ence of pretext to survive his former employer’s motion for summary judgment. In doing so, we clarify the evidentiary burdens each party faces after one party has moved for summary judgment. We address, in particular, three concerns: whether the evidence on which an employee relies to survive a defendant’s motion for summary judgment need show not only that the defendant’s stat…
Bernard E. Bulwer vs. Mount Auburn Hospital & Others is worth reading on Massachusetts summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "In doing so, we clarify the evidentiary burdens each party faces after one party has moved for summary judgment." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ronald B. Wheatley vs. American Telephone & Telegraph Company & Another
Ronald B. Wheatley vs. American Telephone & Telegraph Company & Another, 418 Mass. 394 (1994)
…the Superior Court judge allowed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed, contending that the Superior Court judge incorrectly determined that the period of limitations began to run, at the latest, on the date on which he received written notice that he would soon be terminated and that, even if the limitations period commenced on the notification da…
On summary judgment, Ronald B. Wheatley vs. American Telephone & Telegraph Company & Another speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "Superior Court judge allowed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
City of Gloucester vs. Civil Service Commission & Others
City of Gloucester vs. Civil Service Commission & Others, 408 Mass. 292 (1990)
…This is an appeal by the city of Gloucester from a grant of summary judgment for the defendants. The *293 judgment affirmed an order of the Civil Service Commission (commission) requiring the city to reinstate the defendant D’Antonio to his employment as a junior draftsman in the city’s department of public works (DPW). Because we hold that D’Antonio’s separation from employmen…
City of Gloucester vs. Civil Service Commission & Others is worth reading on Massachusetts summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "This is an appeal by the city of Gloucester from a grant of summary judgment for the defendants." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to Massachusetts. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where Massachusetts codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later Massachusetts cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the Massachusetts evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
Massachusetts case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in Massachusetts
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick District Court / BMC small-claims session vs Superior Court (District Court / Boston Municipal Court for many civil cases) based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a complaint that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on eFileMA / Odyssey File & Serve (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under Mass. R. Civ. P. 4; G.L. c. 223.
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling Massachusetts cases and the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence / common-law evidence practice on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Key takeaways
- Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations generally must appear by Massachusetts counsel.
- Main trial forum: Superior Court (District Court / Boston Municipal Court for many civil cases). Smaller disputes often belong in District Court / BMC small-claims session (generally up to $7,000).
- Procedure: Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. Opening paper: a complaint.
- Service: Mass. R. Civ. P. 4; G.L. c. 223. Serve the summons and complaint under Rule 4 — deputy sheriff or constable personal service is common.
- E-filing: eFileMA / Odyssey File & Serve. E-filing is expanding across Trial Court departments; small claims often remains paper-friendly.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to Massachusetts) and the Massachusetts evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer Massachusetts; Massachusetts pro se; eFileMA; how to sue in Massachusetts.
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in Massachusetts?
Prepare a complaint, file it in the correct Massachusetts court (Superior Court (District Court / Boston Municipal Court for many civil cases) or District Court / BMC small-claims session), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under Mass. R. Civ. P. 4; G.L. c. 223. Register for eFileMA / Odyssey File & Serve when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
E-filing is expanding across Trial Court departments; small claims often remains paper-friendly. Confirm department-specific standing orders. Registration steps: Create an eFileMA account through an approved provider, verify identity, and pay filing fees or seek a fee waiver (indigency affidavit).
Will I get a jury?
Claim a jury under Mass. R. Civ. P. 38 and related statutes. Small claims are non-jury.
What happens in discovery?
Mass. R. Civ. P. 26–37 govern discovery. Superior Court tracking orders set discovery deadlines.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read Massachusetts opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Massachusetts attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official Massachusetts sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.