interest, Byrd v. Blue Ridge Cooperative, supra. Plaintiff has not alleged that he is indigent and therefore unable to file the bond required by section 60B. Therefore, his contention that application of section 60B by the federal courts interferes with the role of the jury in the federal system hinges upon the assertion that the $2000 bond requirement constitutes, as a matter of law, an impermissible barrier to the right to trial by jury afforded by the Seventh Amendment. We agree with the Supreme Judicial Court that the requirement that a $2000 bond be filed “is not unreasonably burdensome for nonindigent plaintiffs whose claims have already been the subject of adverse findings by the statutory tribunals.” Paro v. Longwood Hosp., supra, 373 Mass, at 653-54, 369 N.E.2d at 990 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, applying the weighing approach
holding that a criminal defendants right to an impartial jury is guaranteed by article 1 section 9 of the pennsylvania constitution holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted recognizing massachusetts doctrine that solid default of appearance constitutes a deemed waiver of the right to jury trial holding inter alia that the bond requirement of section 60b does not violate the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the massachusetts declaration of rights holding inter alia that the bankruptcy code preempts massachusetts homestead acts exceptions for preexisting liens and prior contracted debts