1:25-cv-11270•Bezanson et al v. Dobbs et al
Texte intégral
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
Ayva Bezanson, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v .
Rachael Dobbs, et al. ,
Defendant.
GORTON, J.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
25-11270-NMG
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Ayva Bezanson (" Ayva " ) and her parents (" Mr. Bezanson " and
" Ms . Bezanson ," collectively " plaintiffs " ) have filed suit
against Rachel Dobbs (" Dobbs " ) , Ayva ' s high school g ui dance
counselor , and Amesbury High School (" AHS " ) , the sc h oo l Ayva
attends . Plaintiffs allege various torts stemming from bullying
experienced by Ayva at AHS . Pending before the Court are two
motions to dismiss filed by defendant Dobbs . The first motion
moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant Fed . R. Civ . P . 12 (b) (6) (Docket No . 23) , and the second
is a " special motion " to dismiss pursuant to the Massachuse t ts
Anti - SLAPP statute , M. G. L . c . 231 , §59H (Docket No . 25) . For
the following reasons , both motions will be allowed , in part ,
and denied , in part .
- 1 -
Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 13I . Background
A . Facts
Ayva enrolled as a student at AHS in 2020 . During that
school year , Ayva was diagnosed with a bone cyst th a t req uir ed
her to use crutches and wear a brace . She alleges that the
disability subjected her to bullying from her classmates for a
prolonged period .
In December , 2020 Mr . Bezanson reported to AHS an instance
of cyber bullying targeting Ayva . In October , 2021 , Ayva
discovered a group chat of around 15 to 20 students where
offensive language was used about Ayva ' s sex and physical
disability . In March , 2022 , Ayva was approached by 10 to 12
students who mocked her and then bullied her in another incident
five days later . Dobbs and AHS were made aware of these
incidents but no action was ever taken . In May , 2022 ,
plaintiffs filed a Problem Resolution System complaint with the
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
(" DESE " ) .
Plaintiffs ' claims , as related to this motion , arise from
two distinct events that occurred in December , 2021 , and May ,
2022 .
1. The December Report
In December , 2021 , defendant Dobbs brought Ayva to her
office to question her about an incident involving another
-2 -
Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 13student in which Ayva was neither the target nor the aggressor .
Plaintiffs allege that Ayva was distrustful of school
administrators and , as a result , recorded that meeting without
Dobbs ' consent .
Dobbs became aware of the recording and reported the
incident to the schoo l administration , indicating that she
contemplated pursuing criminal charges . In her affidavit
supporting her special motion to dismiss , Dobbs states that she
had no knowledge of the recording at the time and did not
consent to being recorded . Further , Dobbs alleges that 1) the
recording was disseminated among other students jeopardizing the
integrity of her investigation and 2) disclosed potentially
confidential medical detail s of other students .
Dobbs conferred with the AHS school resource officer Troy
Burrell (" SRO Burrell " ) and was advised that she could seek the
school ' s intervention or file a report with the Amesbury Police
Department (" APO " ) . Plaintiffs maintain that Dobb s also
conferred with her father , a retired APO detective , who advised
her to press charges . In December , 2021 , Dobbs filed a criminal
complaint against Ayva alleging violations of Massachusetts
wiretapping laws (" the December Report " )
As a resu lt of the December Report , Ayva was formally
charged with wiretapping and entered into a juvenile diversion
program to avoid trial . A magistrate judge found Dobbs '
- 3-
Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 13December Report to be exaggerated and recommended that she drop
the charges which she refused to do .
2. The May Report
In May , 2022 , Ayva was present in the nurse ' s office , which
had previously been designated as her " safe space ," and
discussed the December Report with the nurse . The conversation
was overheard by another student who promptly reported it to
Dobbs who then went to the nurse ' s office to investigate .
Soon thereafter , Dobbs again met with SRO Burrell about
filing another criminal complaint . Plaintiffs allege that Dobbs
was told that the school should handle the matter internally but
that she then contacted the APO and filed another criminal
complaint against Ayva concerning the nurse ' s office incident
(" the May Report " ) . As a result of the May Report , Ayva was
charged with witness intimidation and obstruction of justice . A
subsequent investigation fo und that Ayva did not violate any
school rule or act inappropriately . Further , in July , 2022 , a
magistrate judge found no probable cause for the charges and
dismissed the case against Ayva .
Plaintiffs allege that , shortly before the May Report , AHS
had been notified by DESE that the district was being
investigated for failing to address Ayva ' s reports of bullying
and her alleged injuries . They assert that AHS was also
-4-
Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 13notified that DESE referred part of Ayva ' s complaint to the
Offi c e for Civil Rights (" OCR " ) for further investigation .
B. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint against both Dobbs
and AHS in May , 2025 . AHS answered the amended complaint in
July , 2025 , and Dobbs contemporaneously filed both a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Fed . R . Civ . P . 12(b) (6) (Docke t No . 23) and a
sp e c i a l motion to dismiss pursuant to M.G . L . c . 2 31 , § 5 9H
( Do c ke t No . 2 5 ) . Plaintiffs timely opposed bo t h motions .
II. Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, §59H
A. Legal Standard
The Massachusetts Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation) is designed to resolve quickly lawsuits
aim e d at det e rring individuals from exercis i ng t heir right of
pet i tion . ' Ke e gan v . Pellerin , 76 Mass . App . Ct . 186 (2010) . 1 The
Mass a ch u setts Supreme Judicial Court (" the SJC") has described a
tw o -st e p pro c ess by which courts should evaluate special motions
to d ismiss f ile d unde r §59H . First , the movant must make a
th r eshold showing through pleadings and affidavi t s that the
claims against her are based sol~ly upon her petitioning
activity . Bristol Asphalt , Co . v . Rochester Bituminous Prods .,
In c ., 4 93 Mass. 539 , 555 (2024). Thereafter , the burden shifts
1 The Anti - SLAPP statute (state law) applies in federal court pursuan t t o t he
Erie doctrine . See Godin v . Schencks , 629 F3d 79 , 85 - 92 (1st Cir . 2010) .
- 5-
Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 13to the non - movant to show that the petitioning activity lacked any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law . Id . at 557 . B. Application Here , Dobbs has met her burden of showing that the claims against her are based solely upon her petitioning activity . Plaintiffs brought claims against Dobbs for malicious prosecution and abuse of process , both of which are based entirely upon the filing by Dobbs of two criminal complaints . Plaintiffs allege that the f i ling of those complaints amounted to more than just petitioning activity because of Dobbs ' retaliatory intent . That does not , however , alter the fact that the operative acts complained of are the filings of criminal complaints . The Court concludes that Dobbs has therefore met her burden under the first prong of the Bristol Asphalt test . Next , plaintiffs must show that the petitioning activity lacked any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law . Because both the malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims are predicated upon the two separate criminal complaints , those incidents must be evaluated separately . 1. December Report Dobbs ' first criminal complaint alleged that Ayva violated Massachusetts wiretapping laws by recording their conversation without Dobbs ' consent . Massachusetts law forbids a person from -6 - Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 13
recording an oral conversation without the consent of all parti e s to that communication . M. G. L c . 272 , §99 . Here , the facts presented in both the complaint and affidavits demonstrate t h at Ay va us ed h e r ce l l phone to re c or d the conversation with Dobbs wi tho u t h er consent . Because that ac tiv ity closely aligns with activities prohibited by state law , plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing that the December Report lacked any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law . Counts IX and X wi ll 'the refore be dismissed with respect to the wiretapping charges reporte d in the December Report . 2 . May Report The May Report contains allegations that Ayva committed some sort of crime with respect to her May , 2022 , conversation in the nurse ' s office . Plaintiffs ' complaint , and subsequent filings , refer to the May Report as pressing charges against Ayva for witness intimidation and obstruction of justice . It is not clear from the pleading and affidavit , however , that the May Report indeed accused Ayva of a crime . Nonetheless , the p a rtie s app ea r to agree that the complaint resulted in charges being filed against Ayva . With respect to the May Report , the Court concl u des t h at plaintiffs have met their burden under Bristol Asphalt . Based upon the pleading and affidavit , the May Report lacked any - 7 - Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 7 of 13
reasonable fac t ual support or arguable basis in law . The record
shows that Ayva , a minor student , was discussing her pending
criminal charges with the school nurse . That conversation took
place in the nurse ' s off i ce , her designated " safe space ," and
happened to be overheard by one or more other students . Su ch
conduct cannot be fairly construed as being criminal . The
special motion to dismiss will therefore be denied with respect
to the activity described in the May Report .
III. Public-Employee lmmunity
Defendant Dobbs next asserts that she is entitled to
public - employee immunity from liability under §2 of t h e
Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (" MTCA " ) . That statute provides
that no public employee shall be held liable for injuries caused
by negligent or wrongful acts committed while acting in their
official capacities . M. G. L . c . 258 , § 2 . Massachusetts courts
have interpreted the statute as barring claims for intentional
torts against public employers but not against public employees
in their individual capacities . Spring v . Geriatric Auth . of
Holyoke , 394 Mass . 274 , 286 n . 9 (1985) .
Plaintiffs bring claims of malicious prosecution , abuse of
process and loss of consortium against defendant Dobbs in her
individual capacity . These are intentional torts . Dobbs cannot
therefore claim public - employee immunity from liability .
- 8-
Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 8 of 13IV. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 12(b) (6) A. Legal Standard Defendant Dobbs ' second motion to dismiss is filed pu r suant to Fed . R. Civ . P . 12 (b) (6) . To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) , plaintiffs must state a claim for relief that is actionable as a matter of law and plausible on its face . Ashcroft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S . 662 , 678 (2009) . A claim is facially plausible if , after accepting as true all non - concl ~sory factual allegations , . the court can draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable . Ocasio - Hernandez v . Fortuno - Burset , 640 F . 3d 1 , 12 (1st Cir . 2011) When rendering such a determination , a court may consider certain categories of documents extrinsic to the complaint without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment . Freeman v . Town of Hudson , 714 F . 3d 29 , 36 (1st Cir . 2013) . For instance , a court may consider documents of · undisputed authenticity , official public records , documents central to a plairitiff ' s claim and documents that were sufficiently referred to in the complaint . Watterson v . Page , 987 F . 2d 1 , 3 (1st Cir . 1993) . B . Application Dobbs mdves to dismiss Counts IX , X and XII of the complaint . Because this Court will allow the special motion to dismiss Counts IX artd X with respect to the December Report , it - 9- Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 9 of 13
will not address whether those portions of the counts should also be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) . 1. Count IX - Abuse of Process To sustain an abuse of process claim , plaintiffs must allege the use of legal process , for an ulterior or illegitimate purpose , that resulted in damages . Millennium Equity Holdings , LLC v . Mahlowitz , 456 Mass . 627 , 636 (2010) . Process refers to papers issued by the court to bring a party within its jurisdiction , Jones v . Brockton Pub . Mkt ; , 340 N. E.2d 484 , 486 (Mass . 1975) ~ and encompasses the filing of criminal complaints , Gouin v . Gouin , 249 F . Supp . 2d 62 , 70 (D . Mass . 2003) . An ulterior or illegitimate motive must be o n e that seeks to gain a collateral advantage over the plaintiff . Psy - Ed Corp . v . Klein , 947 N. E . 2d 520 , 534 (Mass . 20 11 ) . The Court concludes that , although it is a close call , plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to state a claim for abuse of process . First , they claim that defendant Dobbs filed a criminal complaint with the APO against Ayva which resulted in criminal charges being filed against her . That satisfies the use of legal process for purposes of the tort . Plaintiffs also contend that , during the months preceding this report , they made complaints to both AHS and the DESE about the bullying of Ayva . Resolving all inferences in favor of the non-moving party , the Court concludes that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that - 10 - Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 10 of 13
Dobbs filed the May Report with the ulterior motive of stopping plaintiffs from filing any further reports . The motion to dismiss will therefore be denied with respect to Count IX . 2. Count X - Malicious Prosecution To state a claim for malicious prosecution , plaintiffs must allege that defendant Dobbs maliciously initiated an action against Ayva without probable cause and that the action was ultimately terminated in plaintiffs ' favor . Chervin v . Travelers Ins . Co . , 448 Mass . 95 , 103 (2006) . If an individual induces a police officer or prosecutor to file formal c'riminal charges , she may be found to have initiated that action . Limone v . United States, 579 F . 3d 79 , 89 (1st Cir . 2009) . A lack of probable cause may be so obvious as to infer malice . Goddard v . Kelley , 629 F. Supp . 2d 115 , 130 (D . Mass . 2009) . Plaintiffs have met their burden under this standard . The complaint makes clear that the May Report initiated criminal charges against Ayva that were ultimately dismissed by a magistrate judge . As discussed above , plaintiffs have also pled facts sufficient to show that the May Report lacked any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law and , in fact , may have been motivated by a desire to discourage the filing of further complaints . Such facts are sufficient to state a claim for malicious prosecution and the motion to dismiss will therefore be denied with respect to Count X. - 11 - Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 11 of 13
3 . Count XI - Loss of Consortiu..~ Finally , Ayva ' s pa r en ts claim loss of consortium against defendant Dobbs for damages incurred as a result of her abuse of process and malicious prosecution against Ayva . In Massachusetts , loss of consortium is a separate cause of action and may be maintained where such loss is shown to arise from tortious injury to one ' s family member . Limone v . United States , 336 F . Supp . 2d 18 , 49 (D . Mass . 2004) . Consortium is defined as benefits ·a person receive s from another , including companionship , cooperation and affection . Conso~tium , Black ' s Law Dictionary (12th ed . 2024) . The Court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to plead injuries sufficient to state a claim for loss of consortium . Their allegations of injury are limited to fear , anxiety and emotional distress . Such damage s are not those contemplated within the ·meaning of loss of consortium and Count XI will therefore be dismissed . - 12 - Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 12 of 13
ORDER For the forgoing reasons : 1 . The Special Motion to Dismiss Counts IX and X (Docket No . 25) is , with respect to the December Report , ALLOWED, but , with respect to the May Report , DENIED . 2 . The Motion to Dismiss Counts IX , X and XI (Docket No. 23) is , with respect to Count XI , ALLOWED, but , with respect to Counts IX and X, DENIED . So ordered . Nathaniel M. Gorton Senior United States District Judge Dated : February 25 , 2 02 6 - 13 - Case 1:25-cv-11270-NMG Document 34 Filed 02/25/26 Page 13 of 13
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.