Opinion
14-P-256
12-17-2014
PAVEL LIFCHITS v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
We affirm the judgment dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaint against Progressive Direct Insurance Company. For substantially the reasons set forth in the motion judge's carefully considered memorandum of decision, the plaintiff failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. Indeed, the plaintiff's right to relief is speculative and his allegations are conclusory. See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) ("What is required at the pleading stage are factual 'allegations plausibly suggesting [not merely consistent with]' an entitlement to relief . . .") (citation omitted). Accordingly, we discern no error in the judge's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 755 (1974).
It is worth noting that the motion judge read the complaint indulgently and went to great lengths to articulate the different causes of action that the plaintiff may have been alluding to in his complaint.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Kafker, Cohen & Vuono, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: December 17, 2014.