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, theref ore, 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 cla im, 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 addres s the question of personal jurisdiction first as it goes to the power of the court to a djudicate 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, we2 conclude that the c omplaint was correctly dismissed on this basis. Neither the original complaint nor t he amended complaint contain s 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 Univers al Security Services which is Steve Jones for an Assault on me by one of his Security Officer"; "Steve Jones Security Officer J ude 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 A ction A ssault towards me which serves no L igitimate purpose"; and "Lawsuit against Steve Jones is $2 million." In his motion to dismiss , the defendant argued that the se allegations were inadequate to establish that the court had

p ersonal jurisdiction over him

. T he defendant further asserted in the motion that he was a resident of California, not Massachusetts. Confronte d with this motion, the plaintiff had

" the burden of establishing the facts upon which personal jurisdiction over [the] defendant [was] to be pr edicated." 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 facie3 showing of personal jurisdiction .

. . based on evidence of specific facts set forth in the record

. " Id . at 737. Likewise, in his appellate brief s , 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 urg e d by the defendant. We d eny 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.