Court Opinion

ID: 2964749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:29.289945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:57.149199
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2266 

                           ANN S. ADAMS & JOSEPH F. ADAMS,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                              LARRY W. STEPHENSON, M.D.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Ann S. Adams and Joseph F. Adams on brief pro se.
            ____________     _______________
            Nancy B. Schlacter, Howard M. Cooper and Todd & Weld on brief for
            __________________  ________________     ___________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________
                                  
                                    June 23, 1997
                                                          
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.     In  this  pro   se,  diversity  action,
                 ___________

            plaintiffs Ann and Joseph Adams advance a trio of tort claims

            against defendant  Dr. Larry  Stephenson.  Plaintiffs  are in

            the  business of  preparing, editing  and  publishing medical

            texts  and  periodicals,  often   under  the  auspices  of  a

            Massachusetts corporation (Adams  Publishing Group, Ltd.)  of

            which   plaintiff   Ann  Adams   is  the   sole  shareholder.

            Defendant,   having  worked   with   plaintiffs  on   earlier

            occasions, was engaged  to edit a  textbook published by  the

            corporation in  1994.   The instant action  ensued when  that

            relationship  soured.    After affording  plaintiffs  various

            opportunities  to  supplement their  pleadings,  the district

            court dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for

            failure to state a claim.  We affirm.

                 It  is   true,  as  plaintiffs  observe,   that  pro  se

            complaints  are accorded  "an  extra degree  of  solicitude."

            Rodi v. Ventetuolo,  941 F.2d 22, 23 (1st Cir.  1991).  It is
            ____    __________

            also  true  that,  at  least in  complex  litigation,  courts

            "normally hesitate"  to dismiss under Rule  12(b)(6) prior to

            discovery,  when  "a  party  may not  have  all  the  facts."

            Resolution Trust Corp. v. Driscoll, 985 F.2d 44, 48 (1st Cir.
            ______________________    ________

            1993).  Yet even a pro se plaintiff is required "to set forth

            factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting

            each material  element necessary  to  sustain recovery  under

                                         -2-

            some actionable legal  theory."  Gooley  v. Mobil Oil  Corp.,
                                             ______     ________________

            851 F.2d 513,  515 (1st  Cir. 1988); accord,  e.g., Dewey  v.
                                                 ______   ____  _____

            University  of New Hampshire, 694  F.2d 1, 3  (1st Cir. 1982)
            ____________________________

            (it is "not enough  to allege a general scenario  which could

            be dominated by unpleaded facts"; instead, the claim must "at

            least    set   forth    minimal    facts,   not    subjective

            characterizations, as to who did what to whom and why").  The

            demands  on  the  pleader   are  not  onerous:  dismissal  is

            appropriate at this stage only if "a lenient construction [of

            the complaint]  demonstrates beyond doubt  that the plaintiff

            can prove no set of facts to support [the] claim for relief."

            Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., 26 F.3d 254, 260 (1st Cir. 1994).
            ________    ______________

            Yet "minimal  requirements are not tantamount  to nonexistent

            requirements"; "[t]he threshold [for  stating a claim] may be

            low, but  it is  real."   Gooley, 851 F.2d  at 514;  see also
                                      ______                     ________

            Glassman v. Computervision  Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 628 (1st Cir.
            ________    _____________________

            1996).   Having exercised de  novo review, we  agree with the
                                      ________

            district  court  that, even  with  all reasonable  inferences

            drawn  in their  favor, plaintiffs'  amended  complaint fails

            under these standards.

                 The  claim  of   interference  with  contractual  rights

            requires   little   comment.     See,   e.g.,   Draghetti  v.
                                             ___    ____    _________

            Chmielewski, 416  Mass. 808, 816 (1994)  (listing elements of
            ___________

            claim).   Defendant  is  alleged to  have induced  his former

            attorney  to disclose  proprietary information  pertaining to

                                         -3-

            plaintiffs'   business   affairs,    in   violation   of    a

            confidentiality  agreement reached  in an  earlier, unrelated

            lawsuit between  plaintiffs and an  individual represented by

            that  same attorney.    Plaintiffs were  directed to  submit,

            under seal,  a description of the  information that allegedly

            had been disclosed.   They claim  to have  done so; they  did

            not.  Their submission  recited the confidentiality provision

            in  the   agreement  but   failed  to  identify   any  actual

            information that  was divulged.   The resulting  dismissal of

            this claim was therefore fully justified. 

                 Plaintiffs' "defamation"  claim  is subject  to  several

            alternative   constructions.     To  the   extent   they  are

            complaining of having been  personally libeled, we agree with

            the  district court  that defendant's  March 19,  1996 letter

            "was not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation."

            Dulgarian  v.  Stone, 420  Mass.  843,  848 (1995)  (internal
            _________      _____

            quotation  omitted).   Indeed,  that  letter  (which cited  a

            "controversy"  over  the  rights  to the  textbook)  made  no

            mention of plaintiffs at  all; it referred only to  the Adams

            corporation, which owned  the rights to the publication.   We

            note in addition that, to the extent plaintiffs are advancing

            a  claim  of   business  defamation,  they  lack   individual

            standing.     Such  a  claim   would  belong  to   the  Adams

            corporation,  notwithstanding  Ms.   Adams'  status  as  sole

            shareholder.   See,  e.g., Willis  v. Lipton,  947  F.2d 998,
                           ___   ____  ______     ______

                                         -4-

            1001-02  (1st  Cir. 1991);  Alford  v.  Frontier Enterprises,
                                        ______      _____________________

            Inc., 599 F.2d 483, 484  (1st Cir. 1979).  A  corporation, of
            ____

            course,  may be represented in  court only by  counsel.  See,
                                                                     ___

            e.g., American Metals Service  Export Co. v. Ahrens Aircraft,
            ____  ___________________________________    ________________

            Inc., 666 F.2d 718, 719 n.2 (1st Cir. 1981).  We fail to see,
            ____

            in any  event, how  defendant's reference to  a "controversy"

            could be  deemed defamatory--to either the  plaintiffs or the

            corporation.

                 The defamation  claim might also be construed as one for

            "injurious falsehood," see, e.g., Dulgarian, 420 Mass. at 852
                                   ___  ____  _________

            (quoting Restatement  (Second) of  Torts   623A  (1977)), or,

            more particularly,  a category  thereof known as  "slander of

            title,"  see,  e.g.,  37  Joseph  Nolan  &  Laurie  Sartorio,
                     ___   ____

            Massachusetts Practice--Tort  Law     132-33  (1989)  (citing
            _________________________________

            Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra,   624); Fischer  v. Bar
                                           _____          _______     ___

            Harbor  Banking  and Trust  Co., 857  F.2d  4, 7-8  (1st Cir.
            _______________________________

            1988); Erikson  v.  O'Brien, 362  Mass. 876  (1972).   Again,
                   _______      _______

            however, because the copyright to the textbook is held by the

            Adams corporation (rather than by plaintiffs personally), any

            such  claim  would  belong  to the  corporation.    Moreover,

            plaintiffs have made no  allegation that special damages were

            sustained--a necessary  element of  the offense.   See, e.g.,
                                                               ___  ____

            Sharratt  v. Housing  Innovations, Inc.,  365 Mass.  141, 148
            ________     __________________________

            (1974); Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235, 238 (1877); 37 Nolan
                    ____    ________

            & Sartorio, supra,   132, at 223-24.
                        _____

                                         -5-

                 Plaintiffs'   remaining  claim--for   interference  with

            advantageous  business  relationships--falters  for much  the

            same reasoning.   See, e.g.,  Swanset Dev. Corp.  v. City  of
                              ___  ____   __________________     ________

            Taunton,  423  Mass. 390,  397  (1996)  (listing elements  of
            _______

            claim).   To  the  extent they  are  complaining of  business

            opportunities lost by the  Adams corporation, they again lack

            standing.  The amended complaint is devoid of any description

            of plaintiffs'  personal business pursuits, much  less of how

            such pursuits may have  been affected by defendant's actions.

            Nor have  plaintiffs made  any reference to  actual damages--

            i.e.,  the "loss  of  advantage directly  resulting from  the

            defendant's conduct," Elm Medical  Lab., Inc. v. RKO General,
                                  _______________________    ____________

            Inc., 403 Mass. 779, 787 (1989)--which is a necessary element
            ____

            of such  a claim, see, e.g.,  Sharratt, 365 Mass. at  148; 37
                              ___  ____   ________

            Nolan & Sartorio, supra,   98, at 133.
                              _____

                 For   these  reasons,  we   conclude  that  the  amended

            complaint fails to  state a  claim upon which  relief can  be

            granted.  Plaintiffs' motion  to strike transcripts comes too

            late and is therefore  denied.  Defendant's motion  to strike
                                   ______

            appendix is denied as moot.
                        ______

                 Affirmed.                                
                 ________

                                         -6-