MROD

Massachusetts Appeals Court Summary Dispositions Pursuant to Rule 23.0 (formerly Rule 1:28)

Docket Number - 25-P-0785main content

 Back 
 

Case Details

JON MYERS vs. DAVID NATHAN MYERS & another.
2/12/2026
Please use your browser search to search within the document
 

Document Content

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
25-P-785
JON MYERS
vs.
DAVID NATHAN MYERS & another.
1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This is an appeal in one of a series of cases between Jon
Myers and various family members.
2
On March 20, 2025, the
plaintiff filed a request seeking approval to file a suit
against David Nathan Myers and Nomi Stolzenberg.
3
On March 21,
1
Nomi Stolzenberg.
2
E.g., Myers vs. Myers, Mass. Super. Ct., No. 1381CV04678
(Middlesex County); Myers vs. Myers, Mass. Super. Ct., No.
1281CV01904 (Middlesex County); Myers vs. Myers, Mass. Super.
Ct., No. 0881CV02800 (Middlesex County); Myers vs. Kaplan, Mass.
Super. Ct., No. 0681CV04384 (Middlesex County). See Bogertman
v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 607, 616 (2016) (court can take
judicial notice of facts "that are indisputably true").
3
Although not readily ascertainable from the plaintiff's
brief, it appears the plaintiff previously "entered into a 2011
settlement agreement wherein he agreed to 'cease and desist from
. . . filing or threatening to file any and all lawsuits on any
matter whatsoever against any of his family members.'" Myers v.
2
2025, a Superior Court judge denied the request because "the
complaint, as drafted, does not meet the pleading requirements
of Mass. R. Civ. P. 8," 365 Mass. 749 (1974), and "fail[s] to
give the defendant[s] fair notice of what the plaintiff's
[claims are] and the grounds upon which [they rest]" (quotation
omitted). The judge also noted that "claims in tort . . . must
be brought within three years." The judge denied the
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on May 27, 2025.
Judgment entered dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with
prejudice the same day. This appeal followed.
4
"[A] judge has inherent power . . . to dismiss a complaint
on his or her own initiative." National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Walsh, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 155, 157 (1989). The plaintiff does
not attempt to explain any error in the judge's conclusions,
thus waiving any such claim, see Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A),
Myers, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct.
1116 (2024). A subsequent agreement for judgment precluding the
plaintiff "from filing a new suit . . . against any relative
. . . without first obtaining leave from the Regional
Administrative Justice" was "entered as an order of the court"
(quotation omitted). Id. See Bogertman, 474 Mass. at 616.
4
The plaintiff's notice of appeal lists the prejudgment
orders denying his request to commence a new lawsuit and denying
his motion for reconsideration. Those orders are reviewable in
this appeal from the final judgment in this matter. See Mass.
R. A. P. 3 (c) (1), as appearing in 491 Mass. 1601 (2023).
3
as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019), and we discern none.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Desmond,
D'Angelo & Smyth, JJ. ),
5
Clerk
Entered: February 12, 2026.
5
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.