Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-22-2022

Case Style:

Daniel J. LePorin v. Greg S. Parzych, et al.

Case Number: 21-cv-11249-NMG

Judge: Nathanial M. Gorton

Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Suffolk County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

personal injury
Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Boston Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Michael I. Goldman and Jacqueline Goldman

Description: Boston, Massachusetts personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a negligence theory
claiming to have suffered more than $75,000 in injuries and/or damages as a direct result of an accident.

This action arose from a boating accident on Lake Sunapee in which plaintiff Daniel LePorin (“LePorin” or “plaintiff”) suffered significant injuries, including the loss of four fingers. Pending before the Court is the motion of defendants Greg and Melissa Parzych (“the Parzychs” or “defendants”) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The following facts are drawn from the pleadings. In August, 2020, LePorin visited the Parzychs at their Sunapee, New Hampshire, residence. Greg Parzych had recently bought a 21-foot Mastercraft power boat (“the Boat”) which his daughter,
Melissa Parzych, and LePorin (and perhaps others) drove out on Lake Sunapee. At some point during the outing, Melissa was operating the Boat while LePorin wakeboarded behind it. LePorin sustained serious injuries, including the amputation of four fingers from his right hand, the cause of which is not explained in the complaint.

In August, 2021, LePorin filed the present action, asserting negligence claims against Greg and Melissa Parzych. He alleges that, inter alia, 1) Melissa Parzych failed to operate the Boat in a reasonably safe manner, 2) Greg Parzych failed to ensure that the boat was operated only by those with adequate skill and experience and 3) both failed to warn him of known dangers. Defendants timely answered the complaint in September, 2021, and denied the substance of the allegations but they did not file the pending motion to dismiss until almost three months later.
LePorin v. Parzych (D. Mass. 2022)

* * *

To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the subject pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is actionable as a matter of law and “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if, after accepting as true all non-conclusory factual allegations, the court can draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).

Outcome: Motion to dismiss denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case