NOTICE: 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).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-253

RAYAN TOBY

vs.

STEVE JONES.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff filed suit claiming that a security officer 

working for Allied Universal Security Services assaulted him at 

a grocery store in Dorchester. The defendant, who is the Chief 

Executive Officer of Allied Universal Security Services, moved 

to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint on grounds of lack 

of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, failure to 

make proper service, and frivolousness. A Superior Court judge 

allowed the motion to dismiss after a hearing and "for the 

reasons provided in the defendant's memorandum." Judgment 

entered accordingly, and the plaintiff appealed.

We address the question of personal jurisdiction first as 

it goes to the power of the court to adjudicate the dispute. 

See D.F. Pray, Inc. v. Wesco Ins. Co., 103 Mass. App. Ct. 325, 

326 n.1 (2023). Exercising de novo review, see id. at 330, we 
2

conclude that the complaint was correctly dismissed on this 

basis. Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint 

contains any allegations establishing personal jurisdiction over 

the defendant. In fact, the allegations mentioning the 

defendant are limited to the following (quoted verbatim): "I am 

filing a Lawsuit for $2 million dollars against Chief Executive 

Officer of the Allied Universal Security Services which is Steve 

Jones for an Assault on me by one of his Security Officer"; 

"Steve Jones Security Officer Jude Bazin that work for ESIS 

Allied Universal Security Services Assaulted me while he had a 

deadly weapon Pistol Gun Attached to him that put my life in 

fear"; "I am filing a lawsuit against Steve Jones for commited 

ERRONEOUS Action Assault towards me which serves no Ligitimate 

purpose"; and "Lawsuit against Steve Jones is $2 million."

In his motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that these 

allegations were inadequate to establish that the court had 

personal jurisdiction over him. The defendant further asserted

in the motion that he was a resident of California, not 

Massachusetts. Confronted with this motion, the plaintiff had 

"the burden of establishing the facts upon which personal 

jurisdiction over [the] defendant [was] to be predicated." 

Cepeda v. Kass, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 732, 736-737 (2004). The 

plaintiff's opposition, however, did not address the question of 

personal jurisdiction at all, let alone make a "prima facie 
3

showing of personal jurisdiction . . . based on evidence of

specific facts set forth in the record." Id. at 737. Likewise,

in his appellate briefs, the plaintiff raises no argument why 

the judge erred in dismissing the case for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. We "need not pass upon questions or issues not 

argued in the [appellant's opening] brief." Mass. R. A. P. 

16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019).

Concluding as we do, we likewise need not pass on the 

remaining grounds for affirmance urged by the defendant. We 

deny the defendant's request for sanctions, as he has not 

provided adequate support for the request.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Desmond, Shin & 

Singh, JJ.1),

Assistant Clerk

Patricia C. Malone

Entered: January 29, 2024.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.