Opinion
16-P-1114
04-24-2017
George SIDERIS v. RILEY & DEVER, P.C.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The pro se plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment dismissing his amended complaint against the defendant law firm for failure to comply with Mass.R.Civ.P. 9, 365 Mass. 751 (1974), and the pleading requirements of Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (2008), and from a subsequent order denying his motion under Mass.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 365 Mass. 827 (1974), to amend the judgment. We affirm.
The plaintiff offers no argument on appeal to demonstrate error or abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion to amend the judgment. We deem the issue waived under Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).
The Peabody police department apparently terminated the plaintiff's employment as a police officer after criminal charges alleging domestic physical abuse were brought against him, notwithstanding the eventual dismissal of the charges. Although represented by counsel in proceedings before the Civil Service Commission (commission), the plaintiff evidently was unsuccessful in seeking to have his employment reinstated.
Subsequently, in 2013, seeking to establish that the criminal charges against him had been fabricated and to obtain reinstatement, the plaintiff retained the defendant law firm as new counsel to reopen proceedings before the commission. What exactly happened thereafter is unclear on this record, but it would appear that the law firm did not reopen the case or otherwise participate in a wrongful termination hearing before the commission. In February, 2016, the plaintiff, acting pro se, brought a complaint against the law firm vaguely alleging "gross misconduct." A Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint for failure to meet the pleading requirements of Iannacchino, supra, but granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
The plaintiff concedes in his appellate brief that his initial complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
On May 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the law firm, alleging that it "conducted civil fraud by means of undue influence at its office" and "that the same caused the [p]laintiff ... to not be proven innocent of the false criminal charges ... at the ... [c]ommission," among other consequences. The same judge allowed the law firm's motion to dismiss without hearing, stating that the amended complaint "fails to meet the pleading requirements of Mass.R.Civ.P. 9 or of Iannacchino." After entry of judgment and an order denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment, this appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff offers only unsupported contentions, which the judge was not obliged to credit, that the law firm somehow falsified his amended complaint and supporting memorandum, and also forged his signature on both documents. For substantially the reasons stated by the judge, i.e., that the plaintiff failed to allege either a claim of legal malpractice or to allege with the requisite particularly under Mass.R.Civ.P. 9(b), 365 Mass. 751 (1974), see Tetreault v. Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings, 425 Mass. 456, 463-464 & n.7 (1997), we affirm the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint.
The plaintiff's forgery claim has been raised for the first time on appeal, and is thus not properly before us. See Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 285 (2006).
--------
Judgment affirmed.
Order denying motion to amend the judgment affirmed.