Opinion ID: 201784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preliminary Issues on Applying Massachusetts Law

Text: 43 A federal court that faces an unresolved state law question is to `ascertain the rule the state court would most likely follow under the circumstances.' Braga I, 57 Fed.Appx. at 453 (quoting Blinzler v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 81 F.3d 1148, 1151 (1st Cir.1996)). It is reasonable to assume that the state court will follow the rule that appears best to effectuate relevant policies. Moores v. Greenberg, 834 F.2d 1105, 1107 (1st Cir.1987) (internal quotation and modification omitted). We may seek guidance `in analogous state court decisions, persuasive adjudications by courts of sister states, learned treatises, and public policy considerations identified in state decisional law.' Braga I, 57 Fed.Appx. at 453 (quoting Blinzler, 81 F.3d at 1151). In so doing, we must exercise considerable caution when considering the adoption of a new application of state law that could expand [its] present reach. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 192 (1st Cir.1996). A federal court sitting in diversity must take care not to extend state law beyond its well-marked boundaries in an area ... that is quintessentially the province of state courts. Markham v. Fay, 74 F.3d 1347, 1356 (1st Cir.1996). 44 Extrapolating from analogous decisions in sister states and policy pronouncements of Massachusetts courts, we conclude that Gurry should not be extended to permit suit here.