Court Opinion

ID: 9927572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 15:05:54.854809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:19.620450
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

                                                  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
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

                                  2
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.

                                  3