MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs eleven-count amended complaint concerning her access to items in a storage unit owned and operated by the defendants.
2
We affirm the judgment.
The underlying facts and claims need not be described in detail. It suffices to say that after a motion judge dismissed most of the claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, the remaining claims went to trial before a jury. After the close of the plaintiffs case in chief, the trial judge directed a verdict for the remaining two defendants on the plaintiffs assault claim and for all four defendants on the plaintiffs claims of trespass to chattels and negligence. The plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiffs appellate brief does not rise to the level of appellate argument. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). See also Maroney v. Planning Bd. of Haverhill, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 678, 683 n.8 (2020). Her brief also fails to include accurate and appropriate record citations as required by rule 16 (a) (9) (A), making her claims of error difficult to decipher. We nevertheless briefly address the points in her brief, insofar as we are able to discern them.
1. Statute of limitations. The plaintiff first asserts that it was error to dismiss any of her claims on statute of limitations grounds. We have reviewed the record and find no indication that any of her claims were dismissed on such a ground, either at the motion to dismiss or directed verdict stages or at any other point in the case.
2. Contract. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants failed to acknowledge their contractual obligations until damages had resulted. The motion judge dismissed the contract claim on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert it. The plaintiff does not identify any error in that ruling.
3. Negligence. The plaintiff argues the merits of her negligence claim. She does not address or identify any error in the trial judges ruling ordering a directed verdict for the defendants on claim preclusion and issue preclusion grounds, based on a prior District Court judgment.
3
4. Negligence per se. Under the heading of “negligence per se,” the plaintiff argues that the defendants conduct violated G. L. c. 184, § 18, and the Attorney Generals consumer protection regulations. The amended complaint, however, does not appear to contain any such claims.
5. Trespass to chattel. As with her negligence claim, the plaintiff argues the merits of her trespass to chattel claim, but does not address the trial judges ruling ordering a directed verdict for the defendants on claim preclusion and issue preclusion grounds.
6. Conversion. The plaintiff argues the merits of her conversion claim. The motion judge dismissed that claim on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert it. The plaintiff does not identify any error in that ruling.
7. Tortious interference with contract rights. As with her conversion claim, the plaintiff argues the merits of her tortious interference with contract rights claim, but fails to identify any error in the motion judges dismissal of that claim on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert it.
8. Damages. The plaintiff argues generally that she was entitled to damages, but she identifies no specific error in the judges rulings resolving her claims in the defendants favor. She also discusses the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, but nowhere did the amended complaint assert an equal protection claim.
Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
2
. The final judgment itself indicates only that the defendants motion for a directed verdict was allowed. In light of the allowance of that motion as to certain claims, and the earlier allowance of a motion to dismiss all other claims, we construe the judgment as resolving all claims in the defendants favor.
3
. The plaintiffs reply brief alludes to res judicata and collateral estoppel but presents no discernible argument as to why either doctrine was inapplicable here.