Court Opinion

ID: 9891355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 14:07:23.070042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:04.388710
License: Public Domain

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

                                                  22-P-287

                                    JANE DOE

                                       vs.

                      CHRISTINA STANKEVICH & another. 1

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

        The plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of her claims

 against Christina Stankevich and Cape Cod Convention Center,

 Inc.    On appeal, the plaintiff makes a barrage of allegations

 against the defendants, but she fails to adequately address the

 underlying decision that is the subject of this appeal.                We

 affirm.

        Discussion.    "We review the allowance of a motion to

 dismiss de novo," accepting as true the facts alleged in the

 plaintiff's complaint and any favorable inferences that

 reasonably can be drawn from them.          Galiastro v. Mortgage Elec.

 Registration Sys., Inc., 467 Mass. 160, 164 (2014).              "In

 assuming the facts as alleged, however, '[w]e do not regard as

 1   Cape Cod Convention Center, Inc.
"true" legal conclusions cast in the form of factual

allegations.'"   Sudbury v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 485

Mass. 774, 778-779 (2020), quoting Leavitt v. Brockton Hosp.,

Inc., 454 Mass. 37, 39 n.6 (2009).    The facts alleged in the

complaint and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom must be

enough to plausibly raise an entitlement to relief to survive a

motion to dismiss.   See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass.

623, 636 (2008).

     Here, the plaintiff has failed to raise any cognizable

argument directly addressing the judge's decision to allow the

defendants' motions to dismiss.   Rather, the plaintiff

reiterates allegations in the complaint, raises several new

issues, and relies on an abundance of extraneous information and

documents that we cannot consider for purposes of this appeal.

See Cariglia v. Bar Counsel, 442 Mass. 372, 379 (2004) ("We do

not consider issues, arguments, or claims for relief raised for

the first time on appeal"); Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass.

474, 477 (2000) ("In evaluating a rule 12 [b] [6] motion, we

take into consideration 'the allegations in the complaint,

although matters of public record, orders, items appearing in

the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint,

also may be taken into account'" [citation omitted]).

     Even ignoring the deficiencies of the plaintiff's arguments

on appeal, we conclude that her complaint fails to state a

                                  2
plausible claim against either defendant entitling her to

relief.    Indeed, the complaint does not allege any facts

specifically attributable to defendant Stankevich.     For such

conduct that she does attribute to defendant Cape Cod Convention

Center, Inc., these largely consist of "legal conclusions cast

in the form of factual allegations" (citation omitted).

Sudbury, 485 Mass. at 778-779.    The remaining allegations

attributed to this defendant are barred by applicable statutes

of limitations or otherwise fail to state a plausible claim

entitling her to relief.    See G. L. c. 260, § 2A (three-year

statute of limitations applies to actions of tort).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment granting the defendants'

motions to dismiss. 2

                                      Judgment affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Meade,
                                        Hershfang & D'Angelo, JJ. 3),

                                      Clerk

Entered:    October 18, 2023.

2 The defendants' request for an order striking materials from
the plaintiff's brief and record appendix is denied. Also, the
plaintiff's request to expand the record and the defendants'
motion to strike are denied.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  3