Hongnian Guo v. Jillian S. Pizzi.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Hongnian Guo v. Jillian S. Pizzi.

DecidedOctober 10, 2024

Docket24-P-0101

StatusUnpublished

This text of Hongnian Guo v. Jillian S. Pizzi. (Hongnian Guo v. Jillian S. Pizzi.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hongnian Guo v. Jillian S. Pizzi., (Mass. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

24-P-101

HONGNIAN GUO

vs.

JILLIAN S. PIZZI.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court

seeking $100,000 in damages against the defendant for some

unspecified injury and a "penalty" for "falsifying medical

record and false statement." The factual allegations of the

complaint are, in their entirety, as follows: "(1) Falsify the

medical visiting record to cheat the plaintiff and the court";

and "(2) Being the therapist to the kids she ignored the

plaintiff to meet his kids intentionally." After a hearing a

Superior Court judge, citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 8, 365 Mass. 749

(1974), dismissed the complaint without prejudice for "fail[ure]

to state recognizable claims or relief within the jurisdiction

of this Court." The judge's order expressly gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in conformity with Mass. R.

Civ. P. 8 and provided guidance on how to do so. Instead, the

plaintiff elected to file this appeal.

A judge has discretion to dismiss a complaint for failure

to meet the pleading requirements of Mass. R. Civ. P. 8. See

Mmoe v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 617, 621 (1985). Here, the

judge was correct to conclude that the complaint's factual

allegations, which are bereft of any context, "fail[] to give

the defendant[] 'fair notice of what the plaintiff's [claims

are] and the grounds upon which [they rest].'" Id., quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The plaintiff's brief

raises no discernible argument as to why the judge erred. The

complaint was therefore properly dismissed.

Order dismissing complaint without prejudice affirmed.

By the Court (Shin, Ditkoff & Brennan, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: October 10, 2024.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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).