Jha v. Dep't of Early Educ. & Care, 21-P-797

CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts
PartiesRANJANA JHA v. DEPARTMENT OF EARLY EDUCATION AND CARE
Decision Date17 June 2022
Docket Number21-P-797

RANJANA JHA
v.

DEPARTMENT OF EARLY EDUCATION AND CARE

No. 21-P-797

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

June 17, 2022


Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Ranjana Jha, brought this action pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, seeking judicial review of a decision of the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC), to impose sanctions on, and the subsequent decision to suspend and not renew, Jha's Family Child Care License (the 2020 case) . A judge of the Superior Court allowed EEC's cross motion for judgment on the pleadings and judgment entered dismissing Jha's complaint. On appeal Jha contends (1) it was error for the judge to deny as moot her complaint in an earlier action (the 2019 case) because she was entitled to a hearing before the imposition of sanctions, and (2) the decision to suspend and not renew her license was not supported by the evidence. We affirm.

1. Mootness. In 2019, Jha sought judicial review of EEC's imposition of sanctions that reduced the number of children

1

enrolled in her program and prevented her from accepting new enrollees. The judge dismissed the case as moot because, by the time the case was filed and considered, subsequent events occurred that resulted in the suspension and nonrenewal of Jha's license.

Jha contends that the judge erred in dismissing her complaint as moot because she was entitled to a hearing before the EEC imposed sanctions, the failure to hold a hearing violated her due process rights, and the case was not moot. Jha did not appeal the dismissal of the 2019 case, so that issue is not properly before us. See DeLucia v. Kfoury, 93 Mass.App.Ct. 166, 170 (2018) ("notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite" to consideration of matter on appeal).

Even if we were to consider her arguments, the claim that EEC failed to hold a hearing is unavailing. After the EEC suspended her license, Jha...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT