McDonough v. Guyton, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-142-16)
1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT SUCV2015-03655-BLS2 ELINOR MCDONOUGH, Plaintiff vs. JOSEPH GUYTON, individually and d/b/a THE GUYTON GROUP, THE BULLFINCH GROUP INSURNACE AGENCY, INC., THE BULLFINCH GROUP INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, PARK AVENUE SECURITIES, LLC and THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS In this action, plaintiff Elinor McDonough alleges that the defendant Joseph Guyton, individually and as an agent of other entities also named as defendants, not only mismanaged her finances and assets but encouraged her to make investment decisions that served the interest of the defendants at McDonough’s expense. On March 24, 2016, this Court (Salinger, J.) dismissed certain tort-based counts of the Complaint on the grounds that they were time-barred. Judge Salinger reasoned that the three year statute of limitations applicable to those claims began to run as of 2010, when the plaintiff necessarily became aware that she suffered some harm, not as of 2014 when she learned that the investments were unsuitable. In so holding, Judge Salinger noted that, if the Complaint had alleged that McDonough had a fiduciary duty to Guyton, then the limitations clock would begin to run only when she had actual knowledge of the unsuitability of the investments, and that was not (according to the Complaint) until 2014. 2 The plaintiff now moves to amend the Complaint to expressly allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship and has included facts which she contends are sufficient to support that. The defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that it adds no new allegations and also move, in the alternative, to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Mass.R.Civ.P., if the plaintiff’s Motion is allowed. This Court concludes that the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend must be ALLOWED and the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss must be DENIED. The Court reaches this conclusion in light of the standard that must be applied at this early stage in this case. Although the Complaint must contain something “more than labels and conclusions” so that her entitlement to relief rises above the speculative level, see Iannachino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008), the standard is nevertheless a generous one: this Court must accept as true all factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. This Court is also guided by those Massachusetts cases which have discussed what is necessary in order to find a fiduciary relationship. Although there are certain considerations that are relevant to the determination, it is inevitably a fact driven one. Patsos v. First Albany Corp., 433 Mass. 323, 332 (2001) (reversing summary judgment allowance because […]