Rayan Toby v. Steve Jones.
This text of Rayan Toby v. Steve Jones. (Rayan Toby v. Steve Jones.) 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.
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
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rayan Toby v. Steve Jones., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rayan-toby-v-steve-jones-massappct-2024.