Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title I Chapter 218
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, § 19A (2026)

District court or Boston municipal court; statement of facts in support of civil action for damages; dismissal; appeals

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 19A. (a) A clerk-magistrate in a district court or in the Boston municipal court shall not accept for filing any complaint or other pleading which commences a civil action for money damages, except as otherwise provided by law, unless it is accompanied by a statement signed by the attorney or pro se party. The statement shall specify the facts on which the plaintiff then relies to determine money damages. The defendant may file with his answer a statement specifying the potential damages which may result if the plaintiff prevails.

(b) If it appears to the court from the statement of damages by the plaintiff that there is no reasonable likelihood that the estimated damages will be consistent with the civil money damage limits of the court, as set forth in section 19, the judge, after receiving written responses from the parties and after a hearing, if requested by any party, may dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements of said section 19 regarding the amount necessary for proceeding in the district court or Boston municipal court departments. The filing fee in the dismissed actions shall be retained by the court. If a civil action is dismissed in the superior court pursuant to section 3A of chapter 212, and the action is recommenced in the district court or Boston municipal court, those courts shall not require the payment of a new filing fee. If an action commenced in the district court or Boston municipal court departments is dismissed as provided herein and is recommenced in the superior court, the filing fee shall be reduced by the amount of the filing fee previously paid to attempt to commence the same action in the district court or the Boston municipal court. The procedures provided herein for dismissal of an action for violation of the requirements regarding the amount necessary to proceed in the district court or Boston municipal court departments under section 19 shall be the exclusive method by which the dismissal may be ordered. Violation of the requirements for proceeding in the district court or Boston municipal court departments shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction and shall not be grounds for any post-judgment relief in any case.

(c) In any case where a district court or the Boston municipal court dismisses the case as provided in this section, the plaintiff may take an appeal as hereinafter provided. The appeal shall be to a single justice of the appeals court at the next sitting thereof. Upon being notified of the dismissal, the plaintiff shall have 7 days thereafter to file a notice of appeal with the clerk of the dismissing court. Upon receipt of notice of appeal timely filed, the clerk shall forthwith notify the judge who ordered the dismissal. Within 3 days of receipt of the notice, the judge who ordered the dismissal shall set forth written findings and reasons justifying the dismissal, which findings and rulings shall be part of the record on appeal. The clerk shall forward the pleading which commenced the civil action, all statements by the parties, specifying in detail the potential damages if the plaintiff prevails, the judge's written findings and reasons justifying the dismissal and any other documents on file relevant to the appeal to the clerk of the appeals court. Upon receipt thereof, the clerk of the appeals court shall set the matter down for a speedy hearing and send notice to the parties. The court dismissing the case may, with or without motion, issue an order or process to preserve the rights of the parties pending the appeal. The single justice of the appeals court may enter or revoke that order or process. The decision of the single justice of the appeals court as to the dismissal shall be final.

(d) Notwithstanding chapter 260 or any other applicable statutes of limitation, in a civil action under this section in which a plaintiff's case has been dismissed as provided in this section, the plaintiff shall be given 30 days after the date of receipt of the notice of dismissal or, in the case of an appeal from the dismissal, 30 days after the date of receipt of notice of the decision of the single justice of the appeals court to file the case in the appropriate court; if the commencement of the dismissed case was within the applicable statute of limitations. The 30–day time limit in this section shall apply only when the time permitted under the applicable statute of limitations would have expired at any time from the original commencement of the action to the end of the 30–day period.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Sperounes v. Farese, 873 N.E.2d 239 (Mass. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sperounes v. Farese, 873 N.E.2d 239 (Mass. 2007). · cites it 9× “The statute also provides that a judge in the District Court “may dismiss the case without *801 prejudice” (emphasis added), where the requirements of § 19 are not satisfied, G. L. c. 218, § 19A; but that “[violation of the requirements for proceeding in the district court or…”
Zizza v. Zizza, 456 Mass. 401 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 2× “However, just as G. L. c. 218, § 19A, gives a District Court judge discretion to consider, sua sponte, whether to dismiss a complaint that does not comply with the damage limitation requirement for proceeding in the District Court (see note 10 supra, citing Sperounes, 449 Mass.”
Youtsey v. Avibank Mfg., Inc., 734 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D. Mass. 2010). “) Attached to Plaintiffs complaint was a “Statement of Damages,” filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. ch. 218, § 19A, in which he indicated that he was seeking “$20,000 .”
Nalbandian v. Patrizzi, 340 N.E.2d 499 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 2× “” Finally, we think that reading the statute in the manner urged by the tenant here is consistent with the apparent purposes of G. L. c. 218, §§ 19A and 19B, Both sections are experimental in nature and clearly designed to relieve congestion in the Superior Court, and to…”
Toro v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D. Mass. 2016). “In his cover sheet filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, § 19A(a), Toro estimated that his damages were $10,000.”
Pupillo v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 412 N.E.2d 335 (Mass. 1980). “…by consent of the parties in the District Court, Central Worcester Division, and Central Northern Essex Division. G. L. c. 218, §§ 19A, 19B.”
Sheridan, 665 N.E.2d 978 (Mass. 1996). “, G. L. c. 218, § 19A (1994 ed.) (Central District Court of Worcester); G.”
Ingram v. Problem Pregnancy of Worcester, Inc., 488 N.E.2d 408 (Mass. 1986). “Pursuant to G. L. c. 218, § 19A (1984 ed.), the defendant appeals.”
Rockland Trust Co. v. Langone, 75 N.E.3d 594 (Mass. 2017). “3 See G. L. c. 218, § 19A (b) 4 This limitation is, however, merely procedural, not jurisdictional.”
Fijal v. Anderson, 727 N.E.2d 855 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). “He implicitly waived any right of appeal to the Appeals Court because this court generally has jurisdiction over District Court civil appeals only from final decisions of an appellate division (G.”
Islami v. Needham, 648 N.E.2d 778 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “The six-person jury statutes (see G. L. c. 218, § 19A [Worcester County], and § 19B [Essex County]) were intended to reduce the inefficiencies, both to the parties and the judicial system, inherent in a system of multiple trials of the same action.”
New England Auto Max, Inc. v. Hanley (Mass. 2024). · cites it 15× “We conclude that the District Court judge erred in holding that G. L. c. 218, § 19A, constrains a court from looking beyond a plaintiff's initial statement of damages in assessing whether there is a reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will exceed $50,000.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, § 19A(a) — 2 cases
Toro v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D. Mass. 2016). “In his cover sheet filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, § 19A(a), Toro estimated that his damages were $10,000.”
Fodera v. Arbella Prot. Ins., 2015 Mass. App. Div. 182 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2015).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, § 19A(b) — 1 case
Czepiel v. Wysocki, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 13 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.