USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 96-2266

ANN S. ADAMS & JOSEPH F. ADAMS,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

LARRY W. STEPHENSON, M.D.,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,

_____________
Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________

____________________

Ann S. Adams and Joseph F. Adams on brief pro se.

____________
_______________

Nancy B. Schlacter, Howard M. Cooper and Todd & Weld on brief f

__________________ ________________
___________

appellee.

____________________

June 23, 1997

____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

In

this

pro

se,

diversity

action,

plaintiffs Ann and Joseph Adams advance a trio of tort claims

against defendant

the

texts

business of

and

Dr. Larry

Stephenson.

preparing, editing

periodicals,

often

which

plaintiff

Defendant,

Ann

having

Adams

worked

and

under

Massachusetts corporation (Adams

Plaintiffs

publishing medical

the

is

with

the

corporation in

The instant action

opportunities

soured.

to

of

on

of

earlier

ensued when

plaintiffs

pleadings,

shareholder.

textbook published by

After affording

supplement their

sole

plaintiffs

to edit a

relationship

auspices

Publishing Group, Ltd.)

occasions, was engaged

1994.

are in

the

that

various

the district

court dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for

failure to state a claim.

It

is

complaints

true,

as

also

true

that,

when

"an

observe,

extra degree

that

of

941 F.2d 22, 23 (1st Cir.

at

"normally hesitate"

discovery,

plaintiffs

are accorded

Rodi v. Ventetuolo,
____
__________

We affirm.

"a

least in

complex

to dismiss under Rule

party

may not

have

pro

se

solicitude."

1991).

litigation,

It is

courts

12(b)(6) prior to

all

the

facts."

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Driscoll, 985 F.2d 44, 48 (1st Cir.

______________________
________

1993).

Yet even a pro se plaintiff is required "to set forth

factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting

each material

element necessary

-2-

to

sustain recovery

under

some actionable legal

851 F.2d 513,

515 (1st

theory."

v. Mobil Oil Corp.,

________________

Cir. 1988); accord,

______

University of New Hampshire, 694

____________________________

(it is "not enough

Gooley
______

F.2d 1, 3

e.g., Dewey
____ _____

v.

(1st Cir. 1982)

to allege a general scenario

which could

be dominated by unpleaded facts"; instead, the claim must "at

least

set

forth

minimal

facts,

not

subjective

characterizations, as to who did what to whom and why").

The

demands

on

the

pleader

are

not

onerous:

dismissal

is

appropriate at this stage only if "a lenient construction [of

the complaint]

demonstrates beyond doubt

that the plaintiff

can prove no set of facts to support [the] claim for relief."

Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., 26 F.3d 254, 260 (1st Cir. 1994).
________
______________

Yet "minimal

requirements are not tantamount

requirements"; "[t]he threshold [for

low, but

it is

real."

to nonexistent

stating a claim] may be

Gooley, 851 F.2d

______

at 514;

see also
________

Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 628 (1st Cir.

________
_____________________

1996).

Having exercised de novo review, we

________

district

drawn

court

in their

that, even

with

favor, plaintiffs'

agree with the

all reasonable

amended

inferences

complaint fails

under these standards.

The

requires

claim

of

little

Chmielewski, 416
___________

interference

comment.

with

See,
___

e.g.,
____

Mass. 808, 816 (1994)

claim).

Defendant

attorney

to disclose

is

alleged to

contractual

Draghetti
_________

v.

(listing elements of

have induced

proprietary information

-3-

rights

his former

pertaining to

plaintiffs'

business

affairs,

in

violation

of

confidentiality

agreement reached

in an

lawsuit between

plaintiffs and an

individual represented by

that

same attorney.

under seal,

Plaintiffs were

a description of the

had been disclosed.

not.

in

They claim

Their submission

the

agreement

information that

but

earlier, unrelated

directed to

submit,

information that allegedly

to have

done so; they

did

recited the confidentiality provision

failed

was divulged.

to

identify

The resulting

any

actual

dismissal of

this claim was therefore fully justified.

Plaintiffs' "defamation"

alternative

constructions.

claim

To

is subject

the

extent

to

several

they

are

complaining of having been

the

district court

personally libeled, we agree with

that defendant's

March 19,

1996 letter

"was not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation."

Dulgarian
_________

v.

quotation

omitted).

"controversy"

Stone, 420
_____

Mass.

Indeed,

over

the

843,

that

rights

848 (1995)

letter

to the

(internal

(which cited

textbook)

made

mention of plaintiffs at

all; it referred only to

corporation, which owned

the rights to the publication.

no

the Adams

We

note in addition that, to the extent plaintiffs are advancing

claim

of

business

standing.

Such

corporation,

notwithstanding

shareholder.

See,
___

defamation,

claim

would

Ms.

e.g., Willis
____ ______

they

lack

belong

to

Adams'

status

v. Lipton,
______

947

individual

the

as

Adams

sole

F.2d 998,

-4-

1001-02

(1st

Cir. 1991);

Inc., 599 F.2d 483, 484

____

course,

Alford
______

v.

Frontier Enterprises,
_____________________

(1st Cir. 1979).

may be represented in

court only by

corporation, of

counsel.

See,
___

e.g., American Metals Service Export Co. v. Ahrens Aircraft,

____ ___________________________________
________________

Inc., 666 F.2d 718, 719 n.2 (1st Cir. 1981).

____

We fail to see,

in any

a "controversy"

could be

event, how

defendant's reference to

deemed defamatory--to either the

plaintiffs or the

corporation.

The defamation

claim might also be construed as one for

"injurious falsehood," see, e.g., Dulgarian, 420 Mass. at 852

___ ____ _________

(quoting Restatement

more particularly,

title,"

see,
___

e.g.,
____

(Second) of

a category

37

Torts

623A

(1977)), or,

thereof known as

Joseph

Nolan

Massachusetts Practice--Tort Law

_________________________________

Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra,

_____

Harbor Banking and Trust Co., 857

_______________________________

&

132-33

"slander of

Laurie

Sartorio,

(1989)

(citing

624); Fischer
_______

F.2d

4, 7-8

v. Bar
___

(1st Cir.

1988); Erikson
_______

v.

O'Brien, 362
_______

Mass. 876

(1972).

Again,

however, because the copyright to the textbook is held by the

Adams corporation (rather than by plaintiffs personally), any

such

claim

would

belong

plaintiffs have made no

sustained--a necessary

Sharratt
________

to the

corporation.

Moreover,

allegation that special damages were

element of

the offense.

v. Housing Innovations, Inc.,

__________________________

365 Mass.

See, e.g.,
___ ____

141, 148

(1974); Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235, 238 (1877); 37 Nolan

____
________

& Sartorio, supra,

_____

132, at 223-24.

-5-

Plaintiffs'

advantageous

remaining

business

same reasoning.

Taunton,
_______

423

claim).

To

Mass. 390,

397

extent they

opportunities lost by the

standing.

interference

relationships--falters

See, e.g.,
___ ____

the

claim--for

Swanset Dev. Corp.

__________________

(1996)

are

for much

with

the

v. City of
________

(listing elements

complaining of

of

business

Adams corporation, they again lack

The amended complaint is devoid of any description

of plaintiffs'

personal business pursuits, much

less of how

such pursuits may have

Nor have

i.e.,

been affected by defendant's actions.

plaintiffs made

the "loss

of

any reference to

advantage directly

actual damages--

resulting from

the

defendant's conduct," Elm Medical Lab., Inc. v. RKO General,

_______________________
____________

Inc., 403 Mass. 779, 787 (1989)--which is a necessary element

____

of such

a claim, see, e.g.,

___ ____

Nolan & Sartorio, supra,

_____

For

these

complaint fails to

granted.

Sharratt, 365 Mass. at

________

98, at 133.

reasons,

state a

we

denied.
______

appendix is denied as moot.

______

conclude

that

claim upon which

Plaintiffs' motion

late and is therefore

148; 37

the

amended

relief can

be

to strike transcripts comes too

Defendant's motion

to strike

Affirmed.
________

-6-