United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. CASPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Redstar Entertainment, LLC (“Redstar”) has filed
this lawsuit against Defendant Sentinel Insurance Co., LTD.
(“Sentinel”) seeking, inter alia, to
recover multiplied damages under Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A
§§ 2 and 11 for unfair and deceptive business acts
or practices, specifically violations of Mass. Gen. L. c.
176D (“Count II”). D. 1. Sentinel has moved to
dismiss Count II. D. 7. For the reasons discussed below, the
motion to dismiss is ALLOWED without prejudice.
Standard of Review
decide a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the
Court must determine if the well-pled facts alleged
“plausibly narrate a claim for relief.”
Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669
F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). “The plaintiff need not
demonstrate [it] is likely to prevail” at this stage,
only that its claims are facially plausible. Garcia-
Catalán v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 102 (1st
Cir. 2013). Plausible means “more than a sheer
possibility, ” and permits the Court to incorporate a
contextual analysis of the facts. Id. at 102-03
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009)). This determination requires a two-step inquiry.
Id. at 103. First, the Court must distinguish the
factual allegations from the conclusory legal allegations in
the complaint. Id. Second, taking plaintiff's
allegations as true, the Court should be able to “draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678); Ocasio-Hernández
v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir.
2011). The Court is not required to accept as true any legal
conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“[T]he
tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
otherwise noted, these facts are as alleged in the complaint,
D. 1, and the Court accepts them as true for the purposes of
deciding the pending motion.
Redstar is a Delaware limited liability company registered
with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts having its principal
place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts. D. 1 ¶ 1.
Defendant Sentinel is a Connecticut corporation. Id.
¶ 2. Sentinel was the insurer for Redstar's
Cambridge, Massachusetts property from February 23, 2015 to
February 23, 2016. Id. ¶ 5. On August 15, 2015,
Redstar's property sustained significant damages from a
fire. Id. ¶ 6.
adjusted all claims resulting from the fire to Redstar's
satisfaction except for Redstar's claim for Tenant's
Improvements and Betterments (“TIB”).
Id. ¶ 7. The parties' disagreement over the
TIB claim forms the basis of this lawsuit. Id.
¶¶ 12 et seq.
30, 2018, Redstar initiated this action against Sentinel on
two counts: a breach of contract claim (Count I) and the
chapter 93A claim (Count II). D. 1. On December 10, 2018,
Sentinel moved to dismiss Count II only for failure to state
a claim. D. 7. The Court heard oral argument on the motion
and took the matter under advisement. D. 11.
urges the Court to dismiss Redstar's Count II because
commercial plaintiffs may not make a claim under chapter 93A
§ 11 that is premised on a per se violation of
chapter 176D. D. 7. The Court agrees that a plaintiff does
not have a cause of action under chapter 93A § 11 based
solely on violations of chapter 176D as alleged here and
dismisses Count II without prejudice.
primarily supports its argument with three cases,
Polaroid Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 414 Mass.
747 (1993), Jet Line Servs., Inc. v. American Employers
Ins. Co., 404 Mass. 706 (1989) and Kiewit
Construction Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 878
F.Supp. 298 (D. Mass. 1995). D. 7. All three involve similar
sets of ...