Motion,Ex Parte: Dixon, Julia vs. Jiang, Ning et al

On March 27, 2023 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Dixon, Julia, and Jiang, Ning, Yunping, Wang, for Contract / Business Cases in the District Court of Essex County.

Preview
Date Filed 6/8/2023 2:57 AM
Superior Courts,Essex
Docket-Number 2377CV00296

TRIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE SUPERIOR COURT
ESSEX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - CIVIL

CASE NO. 2377CV00296

JULIA DIXON

Plaintiff,
vs.

WANG YUNPING (actually YUNPING WANG)
NING JIANG

Defendants.

Motion to file non-conforming Answer
| would like to request permission to file a non-conforming Answer to the Summons. | am
el representing myself and don’t have any legal training. | do not have all the knowledge of legal
proceedings and the requirements of an Answer.

(-\ My previous Motion to Dismiss the case was denied due to “failure to comply with
Massachusetts Rules of the Superior Court 9A and 9C”. In fear of being denied a chance to
defend myself due to technical errors, I’m submitting this Motion to file a non-conforming
Answer.

Thank you.

ge Ning Jiang
June 7, 2023

5404 SE Malden Dr,
Portland, OR 97206
ingningi@gmail.com

D
Date Filed 6/8/2023 2:57 AM
Superior Court; Essex
Docke}-Muntbef 2377CV00296

Certificate of Service

|, Ning Jiang, hereby certify that on June 6, 2023, | have served this motion to Julia Dixon via
email juliadxn68@gmail.com. Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to updating each other any
submitted papers via email.

Vapors
Ning Jiang
June 7, 2023
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:33 AM
superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

CASE NO. 2377CV00296
TRIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE SUPERIOR COURT
ESSEX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - CIVIL

CASE NO. 2377CV00296

JULIA DIXON

Plaintiff,
Vs.

WANG YUNPING (actually YUNPING WANG)
NING JIANG

Defendants.

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO THE SUMMONS/ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached two contracts and owed her $70,000. Defendants

deny each of the Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint for the reasons below:

(1) A court has already decided this claim in my favor and dismissed the complaint

Plaintiff filed the same case with Suffolks County Superior Court in 2021 (case no.

2084CV01759). The case was dismissed on October 15, 2021 (Exhibit A). Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration was denied on October 28, 2021. Plaintiff then appealed with the Massachusetts

Appeals Court in 2022 (case no. 22-P-43), and the Appeals Court upheld Suffolk Superior Court’s

decision (Exhibit B). After that, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit with the Essex Superior Court with the same

complaint. The content of the complaint remains the same, except for the amount of relief asked.

(2) Ldo not owe this debt and-_have not entered into a contract with Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s complaint was a list of false accusations and grievances. The list of alleged debts in the

complaint was related to financial help that Plaintiff provided the defendants prior to 2004 as stated in

the Statement of Damage in the complaint, when Ning was a minor. (Ning turned 18 in 2004, as stated
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:33 AM
uperior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

CASE NO. 2377CV00296
by Plaintiff in her Motion of Opposition to Defendants’ Dismissal Request.) The amount of financial

help Plaintiff provided Ning was significantly smaller than Plaintiff claimed for in the complaint. It was

never given as loan or debt. Plaintiff’s financial assistance to the defendant or her family was not

conditioned upon a specific promise to repay Plaintiff or to pay a certain amount over a set time.

Moreover, Defendant has been returning the Plaintiff's kindness by helping Plaintiff, her son, and other

people in need financially and in kind.

Despite those facts, Plaintiff alleged that Ning breached two contracts that didn’t exist:

a) The first alleged contract was about funds from an apartment sale that Yunping Wang and her

ex-husband owned in China in 2018. The sale price was a much smaller amount than Plaintiff

claimed it to be. And there was no contract saying that Yunping Wang would transfer all the

funds to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide any evidence of it in her claim.

Plaintiff provided text messages between Yunping Wang (aka. Sunshine World) and herself from

a chat app WeChat as evidence. They were problematic. Yunping Wang does not speak English

and she can only text in Chinese. The English text messages that Plaintiff provided as evidence

were inaccurate WeChat translations; they are full of grammatical errors and made little sense.

In addition, the content does not constitute any contract between the Yunpin Wang and

Plaintiff. Ning was not involved in any of those conversations.

b) Plaintiff further claimed that there was a contract in 2019 of “$500/month” paid from

Defendant Ning Jiang to Plaintiff. There was no such contract. The only evidence Plaintiff

provided was images of cashed checks from Ning (with her husband’s name on some of the

checks). In addition, here is the sequence of events related to the “500/month” that led to the

Plaintiff’s complaint:

In June 2019, Plaintiff texted Ning on a Wednesday that she bought a ticket to visit Ning
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:33 AM
‘Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

CASE NO. 2377CV00296
that Friday, without any prior discussion of the dates with Ning, and it was a one-way ticket.

Ning and her husband work full time and had an infant daughter, and were planning to go out of

town that weekend. They were not prepared to have a guest staying in the house in two days.

So Ning asked Plaintiff to cancel the ticket, and promised to buy Plaintiff a ticket where Ning

could properly receive guests at her house. Plaintiff got angry and called Ning an ungrateful liar

for not allowing her to visit when she wanted. To make Plaintiff happy, Ning bought tickets for

Plaintiff
and her son to visit Ning and family in Portland in August. During that visit, seeing that

Plaintiff was not in good health and was not working as much as before, Defendant offered to

give Plaintiff $500 per month so that Plaintiff was not financially stressed. (Prior to that, Ning

had sent various amounts at times to Plaintiff.) Ning sent Plaintiff $500/month from August

2019 to April 2020.

In May 2020, Ning needed to reduce the amount when her second child was born and her older

child was about to start daycare. The additional child-related expenses significantly tightened

Defendant’s budget. In addition, Yunping Wang is financially dependent on Defendant.

Defendant communicated with Plaintiff this change in her financial situation and that she needed to

reduce the monthly support to $300/month. Plaintiff was enraged at this reduction and immediately

threatened to sue. She filed a complaint against Defendants in August 2020. Meanwhile, Defendant has

made good faith efforts to continue to send $300/month to the Plaintiff from May 2020 to March 2023.

Defendant made the oral offer to send Plaintiff $500/month out of gratitude and kindness, but not out

of legal obligation. This oral offer was not a contract. Reducing the amount from $500 to $300 per

month was therefore not a breach of contract or fraud.

3) Statute of Limitations has expired

In Plaintiff’s Statement of Damage, the list of alleged debts was related to financial help that Plaintiff
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:33 AM
“Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

CASE NO. 2377CV00296
provided the Defendant prior to 2004. Defendant turned 18 in 2004. Even if the Plaintiff alleged that

her financial support from 19 years ago was debt to be repaid, 19 years greatly exceeds the

Massachusetts statute of limitations of 6 years on breach of contract.

(4) Lack of Personal Jurisdiction over Yunping Wang

Defendant Yunping Wang has never lived in or visited Massachusetts. Wang lived in China prior to

2018, and has been living with Defendant Ning Jiang’s immediate family in Oregon since 2018.

It’s recorded in the Appeals Court decision that “it is uncontested that Wang has never lived in

Massachusetts, and the plaintiff did not identify any other contacts that Wang has with Massachusetts.

Dismissal on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction was therefore proper as to Wang.” (Exhibit B)

in her new complaint filed with Essex Superior Court, Plaintiff continues to argue that Wang has

substantial connection with Massachusetts. On page 1 of Plaintiff’s Motion of Opposition to

Defendants Dismissal Request, Plaintiff stated that “connection between Wang and MA is tremendous.

Plaintiff sent her checks through post office in MA, banks from MA manage transaction from Boston to

her in China. Money connection.” These statements does not support her argument.

(5) Failure to deliver summons to Yunping Wang

Yunping Wang was never served the summons for this case filed with Essex Superior Court. Only ¢

Ning received the summons.

Additional Information

Ning does not feel angry with Plaintiff and is grateful for all the help from the Plaintiff years

back. This lawsuit is an unfortunate situation where Plaintiff doesn’t think Defendants repaid her

kindness years ago in the way she expects. Yet Ning feels she is trying her best to help Plaintiff, her son,

and others. Ning understands that Plaintiff’s behavior was a result of her own childhood trauma and

the generational trauma from her own family. Plaintiff would describe to Ning how abusive Plaintiff’s
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:33 AM
"Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

CASE NO. 2377CV00296
parents were. But when Ning tried to help Plaintiff process her trauma by talking about the family

situation, Plaintiff called Ning an “ungrateful enemy of the family”.

Plaintiff sent Ning and Yunping Wang emails or text messages on a daily basis from May 2020 to

today, calling them “murders and liars”, and making other untrue claims. Ning realized that she could

not make Plaintiff happy if the Plaintiff refused to get mental health help herself. All Ning can do is to

preserve her own mental health by not engaging and not pass down the generational trauma to her

own children. Ning stopped direct communication with Plaintiff and stopped sending Plaintiff checks in

March, 2023 due to the insistent harassment.

If the case is dismissed again by Essex Superior Court and it’s evident that Plaintiff does not

have a legal claim to make such as case, the Defendant respectfully asks the Court to consider

dismissal with prejudice so that Plaintiff won’t be able to file the same frivolous lawsuit again ina

third Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Ning Jiang

Address: 5404 SE Malden Dr., Portland, OR 97206
Telephone No.: 857-413-0083

Dated: 06/7/2023
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:33 AM
‘Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

CASE NO. 2377CV00296

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

|, Ning Jiang, hereby certify that on the 7th day of June, 2023, | served a copy of the above document by

mailing to: Julia Dixon, PO Box 465, Peabody, MA 01960, and emailing to: juliadxn68@gmail.com.

Ning Jiang

Address: 5404 SE Malden Dr., Portland, OR 97206
Telephone No.: 857-413-0083
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:36 AM
Superior Court - Essex Exhibit A: Court decision to dismiss case by Suffolk Superior Court
Docket Number 2377CV00296
jolow

CASE NO, 2084CV01769
aly th ‘4
TRIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Notlce eent
10/06/2021
THE SUPERIOR COURT Des
iN SUFFOLK COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL Le We

CASE NO, 2084001768 d !
| \ (sc)

JULIA DIXON

Pini

{ %

WANG YEN PING (actually YUNPING WANG) E-FILED 7/12/2024 (LAW)
TIANG NING (actually NING JIANG)
JIANG GUOBAO (actually GUOBAQ JIANG)

Defendants.

Derevnanrts' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

REMOVE DEFENDANTS FROM CASE, axo ISSUE DISCOVERY REQUESTS

ais Now comes the Defendants, Jiang Ning (sic), whose name {s actually Ning Jiang,
and Wang Yen
this Honorable Court to:
Ping (sic), whose name Is actually Yunping Wang, respectfully moves
and
i} remove Yunping Wang and Guobaa Jiang: from the case as Defendants,
answered
il} dismiss the original complainton file as being unduly vague and incapable of being
as drafted
@
fl) require the plelntfto file a complaint setting forth a clear staternent of the claim showing
basis for relief
iy) isue discovery requests to Plaintifto establish bass for relief

for these reasons:
to statea claim, and
(1) lack of personal jurisdiction, (2} improper service of process, (3) Failure
(4 expired statute of limitations,

In support of this Motion, the Defendant states the followings

(i) Lack Jurisaiction
uh of Personal Jurisdi clion
in China prior to
Defendant Yunging ‘Wang has never lived in or visited Massachusetts. Wang lived
in Oregon since 2018 (x, A-
2018, and has been living with Defendant Ning iang's immediate family
AMidavit),

oo
Date Filed 6/8/2025 3:36AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

Lh K lola

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 20-1759D

JULIA DIXON, Notice sent”
Plaintiff 10/06/2021
J. D.
Y¥. We
ys.

(se)
WANG YENPING, JIANG NING, and JIANG GUOBAO,
Defendants

DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’, YENPING AND NING’S,
MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter came before the court on the Defendants’, Yenping and Ning’s, Motions to

Dismiss. All parties are'self-represented. The dispute arises from an unfortunate circumstance,
'
and perhaps breakdown in family communications, causing the Plaintiff to now claim that her

previous generosity extended to her sister, Yenping, and her niece, Ning!, has not been repaid.

Plaintiff alleges that there was a contract among them which provided that the Defendants would

repay her a certain amount each month. The Defendants dispute those allegations. The

Defendants argue that the complaint against them should be dismissed for the following

reason(s): (1) for failing to make proper service upon them; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction as to

Wang Yenping who has never been to the Commonwealth and does not have any property or

business within the Commonwealth; (3) there is no contract but even if there was, the statute of

limitations precludes this suit because the Plaintiff's last advance or loan to defendants,

according to Plaintiff herself, was in 2012; and (4) there was no contract or agreement to repay

the Plaintiff and no evidence of such an agreement was offered. The Defendants Yenping and

' Defendant Guobao is the husband of Yenping and father of Ning. Plaintiff alleged he was also the beneficiary of
her hospitality in her home and her generosity with her money. He has not answered or otherwise responded to the
complaint. As discussed in/ra it is likely that he has not been properly served with the summons and complaint.
1
Date Fler 68/2025
0 ANT
Superior Court - Essex
Docket'Number 2377CV00296
|

Ning explained that they remain grateful to the Plaintiff for all her assistance and generosity.

Ning explained that each month she remits $300 to her aunt, the Plaintiff, not pursuant to a

contract, but rather out of compassion, to help her aunt out, especially in light of how generous

she had been to her as a young girl.

Upon review of the complaint, the docket and the returns of service filed in this action the

court now ALLOWS the Defendants’ Motion for the following reasons.

Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), the Defendants’ claim they were never served with

the summons and complaint. Raposo v. Evans, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 379, 380 n.7 (2008) (Mass. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(5) provides defense of insufficient service of process). Ning has lived in Portland

for five years and Yenping for three years and Guobao has never lived in Portland and does not

live with Ning and her mother, Yenping. Each of the three summonses, on the reverse side, is

dated “8/19/20.” The green United States Postal Service certified mail card indicates that each

summons and complaint were sent, one to each defendant, at the same address: 5404 SE Malden

Dr. Portland, OR 97206. The return of service postcard attached to the reverse side of the

summons, in the box that states: Complete this Section on Delivery, where it asks for a signature,

each card has the exact same thing written “CV-19” and then in the box that is labeled “received

by (printed name)” each card reads: JL0694 and each is dated 8/13/20. That date would appear

to be six days before the date on the summons which was handwritten as 8/19/2020. Defendant

Yenping is not proficient in English and required a Mandarin translator for the entire hearing. It

is unlikely she could read or sign the green card. Defendant Guobao was not present for the

hearing, but Ning denies that he lives at that address but rather he is believed to live in New

York. He has not appeared in this action. Ning claims she was never served with the summons

? Ning explained she used to transfer $500 but after having her second child her financial situation changed and she
reduced the amounts she sent her aunt.

ee ~ a
— ae
pDateirFiled GrB/202SSeANT”
‘Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

and complaint, She denied signing the green card. Due to the lack of specificity on the return of

service of process as to exactly who was served and when and where, the court finds that the

Defendants’ challenge to service is valid. See Dumas v. Tenacity Constr. Inc., 95 Mass. App. Ct.

ILL, 114 (2019) (plaintiff bears burden of establishing valid service of process), The Complaint

should be dismissed on those grounds alone; however, the court will complete its analysis of the

Defendants’ other defenses.

As to Defendant Yenping, she raised the defense under 12(b)(2) for lack of personal

jurisdiction. The complaint does not allege any ties between Yenping and the Commonwealth.

Yenping is acknowledged to have lived in China and subsequently emigrated to the United States

but never lived in Massachusetts. For the last three years, she has lived with her daughter in

Oregon. On these facts, the Plaintiff has not shown that there are sufficient contacts between

Yenping and the Commonwealth to satisfy due process or the Commonwealth’s Long Arm

statute. See G. L. c. 223A, § 3; Droukas v. Divers Training Acad., Inc., 375 Mass. 149, 152-153

(1978) (“personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant requires ‘certain minimum contacts

with [the State]’”). As to Defendant Yenping, her Motion to Dismiss under Mass. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(2) is ALLOWED.
The remaining defenses raiséd can be analyzed under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) which

means that even if the Plaintiff's well pled facts are accepted as true, she has failed to state a

plausible claim for relief. Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (complaint

must contain “allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) an entitlement to

relief... .”). Here, the Plaintiff's complaint is brief and essentially claims that she understood

that these Defendants would repay her kindnesses and treat her like a second mother. Plaintiff .

paid for her niece’s private high school, offered her shelter, and contributed financial assistance

ae ee —- - -
sDaterFtee-6/6/2020-6:20-At————— oo eon
‘Superior Court - Essex
ocket'Number 2377CV00296

’

for the family’s immigration from China. She claimed that the Defendants said that they would

thank her and pay her back. Nothing in the complaint details how much she would be paid, by

whom and under what terms. However, she says now they do not say hello to her and do not

communicate with her.

Thete are no allegations in the complaint to make out a claim for a breach of contract. A

contract requires and offer, an acceptance of that offer and consideration for the mutual

promises. Northrup v. Brigham, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 362, 367 (2005). Plaintiff's financial

assistance was not alleged to have been conditioned upon a specific promise to repay Plaintiff or

to pay a certain amount over a set time. In contrast, the Plaintiff, in a spirit of generosity, helped

her family. There were no mutual promises of an agreed upon sum or terms. The. Plaintiff

claims that the Defendant’s gratitude has fallen short of Plaintiff's expectations and that has

disappointed the Plaintiff. It is that disappointment that seems to be the source of the discontent

here. See Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo, 405 Mass. 365, 366-367 (1989)

(“moral obligation is not legal obligation... . A hope or expectation, even though well founded,

is not equivalent to either legal detriment or reliance.”).

Defendant Ning explained to the court that she loves her aunt and that is why she sends

her money each month, to help her out. The money is not paid out of a legal, contractual

obligation but instead as a family obligation. Id. Ning recently had a second baby and so she

sends $300 a month via wire transfer instead of the $500 she was previously able to send. But

she acknowledged her aunt’s generosity and wants to support her as she needs. However,

Plaintiff's insistent e mails and texts, often ten or more a day, repeating untruths or accusing

Ning of things she claims she has not done, have been disturbing to Ning so she has stopped

responding to Plaintiff's texts, which has seemed to further anger the Plaintiff.

- - eee ~ -
QBte FEF 6/8/2023-33S6 AN
uperior Court - Essex
et Number 2377CV00296
g
,
Notice sent
10/06/2021
. (sc)
While her complaint is silent on this point, Plaintiff acknowledged at the hearing that the

last time she gave any of the Defendants money was in 2012, or approximately eight years

before filing this complaint. On its face, the elapse of time raises a statute of limitations defense

even if there was a valid contact. A breach of contract must be brought within six years of the

alleged breach. G. L. c. 260, § 2.

The complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief for breach of contract and so for

that reason, along with the others discussed above, the Plaintiff's complaint is Dismissed as to

Defendants Yenping and Ning.

ORDER

‘The Defendants’ Yenping and Ning’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED.

ROSEMA ONNOLL
Justice of the perior Court

DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2021

~~ - oe
Pate Filed 6/8/2023 3:38 AM
Supi EsAapeals Court decision to uphold Suffolk Superior Court decision to dismiss the same complaint
Docket Number 2377CV00296

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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 23.0 or 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008) .

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-43

JULIA DIXON

vs.

WANG YEN PING & others.?

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in Superior Court

against her sister Yunping Wang, niece Ning Jiang (Ning),? and

Guobao Jiang, who is Ning's father. As aptly described by the

Superior Court judge, "[t]he dispute arises from an unfortunate

circumstance, and perhaps breakdown in family communications,

causing the Ip] laintiff to now claim that her previous

generosity extended to {the defendants] has not been repaid."

1 Jiang Ning and Jiang Guobao. Consistent with our practice, the
appeal was docketed under the caption appearing on the Superior
Court docket. In their brief, defendants Wang Yen Ping and
Jiang Ning state that the correct spellings of their names are
Yunping Wang and Ning Jiang and that the correct spelling of
Jiang Guobao is Guobao Jiang. We will use the correct spellings
in this memorandum and order.
2 We refer to Ning Jiang by her first name solely to distinguish
her from Guobao Jiang. We intend no disrespect.
.
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:38 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296,

On Wang and Ning's motion,? the judge dismissed the complaint for

insufficient service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction

as to Wang, and failure to state a claim for breach of contract.

After the judge then denied the plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration, the plaintiff appealed.‘ We affirm.

The judge concluded that the plaintiff failed to show that

the defendants were served with the summons and complaint and

that dismissal was warranted for this reason alone. We agree.

As found by the judge, each of the three return receipts from

the United States Postal Service indicates that delivery was

made to an address in Portland, Oregon, on August 13, 2020.5 Yet

the summonses are dated August 19, 2020 -- six days after the

delivery date -- suggesting that they were not served.

Furthermore, it is unclear from the return receipts who accepted

the items; the notation "CV-19" appears in the signature box,

3 Guobao Jiang did not answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint. The judge found it "likely that he has not beén
properly served with the summons and complaint."
4 Although a separate judgment did not enter on the docket, no
party contends that the dismissal did not fully resolve the
matter or that the appeal is interlocutory, and the plaintiff
filed her notice of appeal within thirty days of entry of both
the dismissal order and the order denying reconsideration. We
will therefore address the merits. See Scannell v. Attorney
Gen., 70 Mass. App. Ct. 46, 47 n.2 (2007).
5 While the date boxes on the return receipts do not fully appear
on the copies submitted to this court, the plaintiff has
provided tracking information showing a delivery date of August
13, 2020, and she does not dispute the judge's finding on this
point.
>
Rate Filed 6/8/2023 3:38 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

and the notation "JL0694" appears in the box labeled "Received

by (Printed Name) ." Ning averred in an affidavit, and both Ning

and Wang averred at the hearing, that they did not sign the

receipts. Ning also averred that Guobao Jiang does not live at

the address in Oregon. In these circumstances the judge was

correct to conclude that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden

of establishing valid service of process. See Dumas v. Tenacity

Constr:, Inc., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 111, 114 (2019). See also

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314

(1950) ("An elementary and fundamental requirement of due

process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is

notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to

apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and

afford them an opportunity to present their objections"). The

plaintiff raises no argument to the contrary on appeal.

We also agree with the judge that the assertion of personal

jurisdiction over Wang would not comport with the long-arm

statute, G. L. c 223A, § 3, or the requirements of due process.

It is uncontested that Wang has never lived in Massachusetts,

and the plaintiff did not identify any other contacts that Wang

has with Massachusetts. Dismissal on grounds of lack of

personal jurisdiction was therefore proper as to Wang. See Good

Hope Indus., Inc. v. Ryder Scott Co., 378 Mass. 1, 5-7 (1979).
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:38 AM
» Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

Again, the plaintiff raises no argument to the contrary on

appeal.

Finally, the judge was correct to conclude that the

allegations of the complaint failed to state a claim for breach

of contract. For a complaint to survive dismissal at the

pleadings stage, the plaintiff must give fair notice of her

claims by including "factual allegations plausibly suggesting

(not merely consistent with) an entitlement to relief"

(quotation and citation omitted) . Iannacchino v. Ford Motor

Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008). Here, the complaint alleges

that the plaintiff paid for Ning's private high school, gave her

food and shelter, and contributed financially to help the

defendants immigrate from China. It further alleges that the

defendants said they would thank the plaintiff and pay her back

but now do not say "hello" or "how are you" to her. Nowhere in

the complaint, however, does the plaintiff state how much she

would be paid back, over what period of time, or by whom. We

note that some of the alleged debts seem to relate to financial

help that the plaintiff provided to Ning when Ning was a minor,

and "[t]he general rule is that contracts of minors are voidable

at the option of the minor." Frye v. Yasi, 327 Mass. 724, 728

(1951). Even construing the complaint generously, we conclude

that its factual allegations do not possess enough heft to
Date Filed 6/8/2023 3:38 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00296

plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. The complaint was

correctly dismissed for this additional reason.

The order entered October 15, 2021, dismissing the

complaint, and the order entered October 28, 2021, denying

reconsideration, are affirmed.

So ordered.

By the Court (Sullivan,
Shin & Hodgens, JT.8),
jor SS SE

Case Info

Judge

Kristen Buxton Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 26, 2023

Case Filing Date

March 27, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Dixon, Julia vs. Jiang, Ning et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties