Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover v. American Bar Ass'n

5 Citing cases

  1. Greenspan v. Masmarques

    23-cv-10134-DJC (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2024)

    Greenspan, however, is a California resident, D. 54 ยถ 20, and, in his complaint, he does not allege having been present in Massachusetts. See Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 959 F.Supp. 36, 3940 (D. Mass. 1997) (failing to establish jurisdiction under Section 3(c) where the complaint fails to demonstrate that the alleged tortious injury occurred in Massachusetts), affd, 142 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998). Greenspan does not point to any facts around the circumstances of the injury he claims to have suffered while present in Massachusetts.

  2. Beck, M.D. v. Bronstein, M.D.

    Civil Action 23-cv-10416-ADB (D. Mass. Sep. 8, 2023)

    A finding of either specific or general personal jurisdiction is sufficient for a case to proceed. See Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 959 F.Supp. 36 (D. Mass. 1997), affd, 142 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs assert that the Court may exercise both general and specific jurisdiction over all the Out-of-State Defendants.

  3. Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. MCMC, LLC

    Civil Action 21-cv-11194-ADB (D. Mass. Aug. 2, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    A finding of either specific or general personal jurisdiction is sufficient for a case to proceed. See Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 959 F.Supp. 36 (D. Mass. 1997), aff'd, 142 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1998). MCMC asserts that the Court lacks both general and specific jurisdiction to hear the case, [ECF No. 16 at 5-6], while ASIC argues that the Court can exercise either, [ECF No. 23 at 7-10].

  4. O'Grady v. Safety-Kleen Sys.

    Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11814-ADB (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    A plaintiff must "demonstrate[] that the alleged tortious injury occurred in Massachusetts." Massachusetts Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 959 F. Supp. 36, 39-40 (D. Mass. 1997), aff'd, 142 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998). See, e.g., Mello v. K-Mart Corp., 604 F. Supp. 769, 771-72 (D. Mass. 1985) (finding that the court lacked jurisdiction where injury occurred in Tennessee, despite the fact that the plaintiff returned to Massachusetts for treatment); Mulcahy v. Guertler, 416 F. Supp. 1083, 1084 (D. Mass. 1976) (finding no jurisdiction where injury occurred in North Carolina); see also Crocker v. Hilton Int'l Barbados, Ltd., 976 F.2d 797, 799-800 (1st Cir. 1992) (finding that the court lacked jurisdiction under ch. 223A, ยง 3(d) where the injury occurred in Barbados, despite the plaintiffs suffering the effects of the injury in Massachusetts).

  5. Daynard v. Ness

    284 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Mass. 2003)   Cited 5 times

    C. Jurisdiction over Individual Group members That the Castano Group is subject to personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts as an unincorporated association does not imply that this Court has personal jurisdiction over group members who reside outside Massachusetts. A court in this district has held that a court's general jurisdiction over the ABA does not confer jurisdiction over individual members of an ABA committee. Massachusetts Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, 959 F.Supp. 36, 38 (D.Mass. 1997) (Lasker, J.); cf. Escude Cruz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 619 F.2d 902, 906 (1st Cir. 1980) (holding that the "general rule is that jurisdiction over the individual officers of a corporation may not be based merely on jurisdiction over the corporation"). Ness Motley and Scruggs do not allege that any members, other than Sandman and Daynard, engaged in any relevant activity in Massachusetts individually.