Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hodas v. Sherburne, 96-2189 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-2189 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: SHERBURNE, POWERS NEEDHAM, P.C.Defendants, Appellees.____________________, and Stahl, Circuit Judge., ____________, Gael Mahoney, Michael D. Weisman, Amy B. Rifkind, and Hill , _____________ ___________________ ________________ ______, Barlow on brief for appellees.F.2d 875, 879 n.3 (1st Cir.
USCA1 Opinion









[Not for Publication]

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________


No. 96-2189

MARTIN HODAS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

SHERBURNE, POWERS & NEEDHAM, P.C., ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________

Matthew Cobb on brief for appellant. ____________
Gael Mahoney, Michael D. Weisman, Amy B. Rifkind, and Hill & _____________ ___________________ ________________ ______
Barlow on brief for appellees. ______


____________________

April 24, 1997
____________________





















Per curiam. Having reviewed the parties' briefs Per curiam. ___ ______

and the appellate record for this case, we affirm the

judgment of the district court for substantially the same

reasons stated in the August 16, 1996 memorandum and order

dismissing the action on statute-of-limitations grounds. We

add only the following.

We find no merit to plaintiff's argument that the

district court improperly considered matters outside the

pleadings without converting defendants' motion to dismiss

into one for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ___

Plaintiff referenced but failed to submit with his complaint

a pertinent document that defendants introduced in support of

their 12(b)(6) motion. The court properly considered the

document as part of the pleadings for the purposes of the

motion to dismiss. See Romani v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 929 ___ ______ ______________________

F.2d 875, 879 n.3 (1st Cir. 1991); 5 Charles A. Wright &

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1327 at _______________________________

762-63 (2d ed. 1990); see also Venture Assocs. Corp. v. ___ ____ ______________________

Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. _________________________

1993)("Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to

dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are

referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to

her claim.").

Affirmed. Costs to appellees. Affirmed. Costs to appellees. ________ __________________





-2- 2






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer