Opinion
No. 12–P–335.
2013-04-4
GROSSI & DENISCO, INC. v. NORTH SHORE LEAGUE, INC.
By the Court (VUONO, RUBIN & SULLIVAN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
In this appeal from the allowance of a motion to dismiss, we must, like the motion judge below, take the facts alleged in the complaint, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, as true. Curtis v. Herb Chambers I–95, Inc., 458 Mass. 674, 676 (2011). The motion judge allowed the defendant's motion to dismiss solely on the grounds that the facts in the complaint did not, in his view, adequately make out the element of monopolistic intent. See Chiodini v. Target Mktg. Group, Inc., 58 Mass.App.Ct. 376 (2003). This is the only basis on which the defendant defends the judgment below.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff received an electronic mail message from the president of the defendant tennis league in which the plaintiff's club had been denied membership; the president was himself a manager of another tennis club, and explained that he voted against the plaintiff's application to join the league on the ground that it would reduce the revenues of the existing members of the league. There is also an allegation that no new clubs have ever been admitted to join the league since its establishment in 1975. These allegations suffice to support an inference that the plaintiff was indeed denied admission on the basis of a monopolistic intent. While we express no opinion on the merits of the suit, this means that dismissal at this early stage of the proceedings was not appropriate.
Even assuming it was proper to have reviewed the materials attached to the motion to dismiss, they indicate only that the issue whether new clubs have joined the league since its establishment is controverted.
This would be a reasonable inference even if a showing of monopolistic intent required a demonstration that all seven of the club representatives who voted against admission of the plaintiff to the league shared that intent, a question we need not and do not decide, but which we may assume to be the case for purposes of this decision. Whether it will be borne out that any of the representatives actually had such an intent is something that remains to be seen and that may be clarified by the development of facts during discovery or, ultimately, at trial.
Judgment reversed.
Order denying motion for reconsideration reversed.