-
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-
Document Info
Docket Number： 96-2266
Filed Date： 6/26/1997
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015