Whether the Chief Justice for Administration and Management (CJAM) acted within his authority in rejecting the appointment of a probation officer.

Plaintiff Stephen Anzalone was certified for appointment as a probation officer by the Commissioner of Probation. Six months later, the CJAM rejected Anzalone’s appointment without explanation. Anzalone filed claims for: (1) damages; (2) mandamus relief; (3) wrongful interference with a prospective advantageous relationship; and (4) detrimental reliance.

Although Anzalone disclosed in his application that his father, sister, and uncle were already probation officers, he did not disclose that three of his cousins were probation officers as well. In its combined Rule 12(c) and summary judgment motion, the CJAM averred that Anzalone’s nondisclosure was the reason for rejection. The judge held that that reason was sufficient and dismissed the case, declining to specify whether he did so pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c) or 56.

1. G.L. c. 211B, § 8. Under § 8, the CJAM promulgates standards for appointment of probation officers, and has the power to reject any appointment “within fourteen days” if and only if it does not comply with those standards. The Court must resolve one or more of the following: whether a private citizen has standing to challenge the CJAM’s performance under that statute; whether the fourteen day limit is mandatory or precatory; whether the trial judge could evaluate the CJAM’s basis for rejecting the application at the Rule 12(c) phase of trial; and, finally, whether the CJAM’s basis fell within its statutory authority.
2. Wrongful interference with a prospective advantageous relationship. The primary issue as to this count is whether Anzalone sufficiently alleged the malice element of wrongful interference, when he alleged that the CJAM’s delay was “unconscionable.”
3. Detrimental reliance. Anzalone claims he forewent other employment in reliance on his appointment. The primary issue as to this count is whether any named defendant made a representation to Anzalone, and if so whether it was one on which he could have reasonably relied.

Anzalone’s claims for damages are unlikely to succeed. His claim for mandamus is more interesting, requiring the Court to decide whether private citizens affected by the CJAM’s performance should be able to present their claim in court, and whether the CJAM is free to ignore its statutorily imposed deadline for rejection of an appointment. At bottom, however, the Court likely pulled this case sua sponte from the Appeals Court because it relates to oversight of the court system, rather than for any compelling issue of law.