JULIA DIXON v. NING JIANG & Another.

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

24-P-278

JULIA DIXON

vs.

NING JIANG & another.1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Julia Dixon, appeals from the dismissal of

her complaint in Superior Court against the defendants, Ning

Jiang and Yunping Wang. Although the complaint is not included

in the record, Dixon asserts in her brief that the defendants

owe her $70,000 for food, shelter, private school tuition, and

more. According to the Superior Court docket, the defendants

moved to dismiss all counts of Dixon's complaint for lack of

personal jurisdiction pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (2),

365 Mass. 754 (1974). The judge allowed the motion, concluding

that "[e]ven taking a generous view of the circumstances

asserted by [p]laintiff, there are individually and collectively

1 Yunping Wang.
insufficient contacts between [the defendants] and the

Commonwealth to satisfy due process and the Commonwealth's long

arm statute."

On appeal, Dixon argues that the Superior Court has

personal jurisdiction and that the defendants breached their

contracts with her. Although we normally review the issue of

personal jurisdiction de novo, Sullivan v. Smith, 90 Mass. App.

Ct. 743, 746-747 (2016), meaningful review is not possible on

the record before us. Dixon has not provided this court with a

copy of her complaint, the defendants' motion to dismiss, or a

transcript of the motion hearing. The record appendix submitted

by Dixon contains only emails between the parties, photocopies

of bank checks paid to Dixon, and a 2017 memorandum of decision

on a default judgment entered by a different judge in a

different case.

To allow for meaningful review of a judge's ruling, the

appellant must provide a record that is sufficient to support

her claims on appeal. Arch Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Bartlett

Health Enters., Inc., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 404, 406 (1992). See

Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in, 481 Mass. 1637 (2019).

"[The] appellant's obligation to include those parts of the

trial transcript and copies of motions 'which are essential for

review of the issues raised on appeal . . . is a fundamental and

2
long-standing rule of appellate civil practice'" (citation

omitted). Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 84 (1995).

"Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as practicing

members of the bar." Commonwealth v. Jackson, 419 Mass. 716,

719 (1995). See Davis v. Tabachnick, 425 Mass. 1010, 1010

(1997) (pro se appellants held to same standards as litigants

represented by counsel). Because we cannot discern any error

from the record provided by Dixon, we must affirm the order

allowing the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Henry, Smyth &
Toone, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: March 14, 2025.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

3