JANE DOE v. CHRISTINA STANKEVICH & Another. ( 2023 )

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