Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)

Citation: Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
Parent Document: Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2000-02-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8353877/mogilevsky-v-keating/ ↗

Full Text

1,099 chars

This court must accept as true the well pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawm in the plaintiffs favor under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Fairneny v. Savogren Co., 422 Mass. 469, 470 (1996); Eyal v. Helen Broadcasting Corp., 411 Mass. 426, 429 (1991), and cases cited. A “complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). “[I]t is enough for the complaint to contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Charbonnier v. Amico, 367 Mass. 146, 152 (1975). See Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseas, 378 Mass. 85, 89 (1979). Further, a complaint should not be dismissed, merely because it asserts a new or extreme theory of liability or improbable facts. See Coolidge Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ipswich Co., 9 Mass.App.Ct. 369, 370 (1980). 1. Status.

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text