NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
23-P-319
LISA ANTONELLI JONES
vs.
RYNE STEVEN JOHNSON.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a Superior Court jury trial, the plaintiff, Lisa A.
Jones, appeals from judgments that, collectively considered,
dismissed her claims against the defendant dentist, Ryne S.
Johnson, arising out of incidents of alleged sexual harassment
that occurred while she was his patient in 2014.
1
We conclude
that a judge (first motion judge) erred in dismissing Jones's
claims under G. L. c. 93A and for intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED). We further conclude that a second
1
Three different partial judgments entered, on the same
date, based on the partial allowance of Johnson's motion to
dismiss, the partial allowance of his motion for summary
judgment, and a jury verdict that resolved the last remaining
claim. In the absence of a certification under Mass. R. Civ. P.
54 (b), 365 Mass. 820 (1974), "the better practice is to defer
the entry of anything designated a 'judgment' until all claims
are determined as to all parties and then to have a single final
judgment enter as to all claims and parties." Jones v. Boykan,
74 Mass. App. Ct. 213, 218 n.9 (2009).