Opinion
16-P-239
03-28-2017
Arnold NOEL & another v. EVERSOURCE ENERGY & others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Plaintiffs Arnold and Barthine Noel, acting pro se, appeal from the dismissal of their amended complaint. We affirm.
Background . On January 2, 2015, Arnold Noel filed a complaint against NStar Gas and Electric, part of Eversource Energy (Eversource), and an employee seeking emergency injunctive relief from a pending shutoff of service to his business. In April, 2015, the complaint was dismissed for failure to effect service or to appear at a pretrial conference. That same month, Arnold, doing business as Bodyworks, and Berthine filed another complaint against Eversource and NStar. Eversource moved for dismissal or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. Injunctive relief was denied and the plaintiffs were ordered to file "an amended complaint with specific allegations."
On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which named the additional defendants. The complaint purports to make claims pursuant to G. L. c. 93A, and for fraudulent representation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, common-law fraud and fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for an equitable accounting. All defendants moved to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed no opposition, and, on December 16, 2015, the complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, for the reasons set forth in the defendants' respective memoranda. On December 24, 2015, the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 365 Mass. 827 (1974), to vacate the judgment was denied. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment dismissing their amended complaint.
Discussion . We review de novo allowance of the motion to dismiss, taking as true the facts alleged in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the plaintiffs. Ryan v. Holie Donut, Inc ., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 633, 635 (2012). Here, the allegations in the amended complaint are anything but "simple, concise, and direct," Mass.R.Civ.P. 8(e), 365 Mass. 749 (1974), and we, like the motion judge, are persuaded by the defendants' memoranda in support of their respective motions to dismiss.
In their memoranda, each of the defendants engaged in a lengthy discussion of the plaintiffs' individual claims, as best they can be deciphered, and supported their arguments with citations to relevant legal authority. We see no error in their analyses, and we decline to engage in our own because the individual claims are not addressed in the plaintiffs' brief. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975) (court "need not pass upon questions or issues not argued in the brief").
The plaintiffs cite to no Massachusetts cases and instead rely on Federal law, which is not helpful to us. Pro se litigants are "bound by the same rules of procedure as litigants with counsel," International Fid. Ins. Co . v. Wilson , 387 Mass. 841, 847 (1983), and, on this record, we agree that "[t]he factual allegations [in the amended complaint], as a matter of both plausibility and law, [do not] support an entitlement to relief." Ryan v. Holie Donut, Inc ., supra .
Judgment affirmed .
Doing business as Bodyworks.