D.R. v. J.G. (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff obtained an abuse prevention order pursuant to G. L. c. 209A (209A order) in the District Court against the defendant who is a resident of Florida. The defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the 209A order, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant because there was no qualifying Massachusetts conduct and that there was insufficient service of process. We affirm.

Background. On December 9, 2023, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant called her on the telephone and threatened her by saying he was “going to drive up here from Florida with his gun and shoot me in the head.” The plaintiff also alleged that she was the victim of prior acts of physical violence perpetrated by the defendant. An ex parte abuse prevention order was issued against the defendant on that same day with an expiration date of December 11, 2023. At a two-party hearing, the 209A order was extended for one year. On December 20, 2024, the 209A order was permanently extended. Since the initial 209A order, the defendant has filed multiple motions to reconsider or modify the order and motions to vacate it. On December 3, 2025, two years after the initial 209A order extension, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the order pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (4), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), as void for lack of personal jurisdiction which was denied the same day. The defendant filed a notice of appeal.

Discussion. A personal jurisdiction defense “may be waived by conduct, express submission, or extended inaction.” Lamarche v. Lussier, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 887, 889 (2006). “The inquiry whether a party has forfeited a defense predicated on a lack of personal jurisdiction necessarily will be fact sensitive” and considers, among other things, the amount of time elapsed before the assertion of the defense and “whether the party engaged in substantive pretrial motion practice or otherwise actively participated in the litigation.” American Int'l Ins. Co. v. Robert Seuffer GMBH & Co. KG, 468 Mass. 109, 119-120, cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1061 (2014).

Here, the defendant filed multiple motions contesting or seeking to modify the 209A order over the course of approximately two years before finally raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. So far as the record before us shows, and contrary to the suggestion in his brief, the defendant first asserted the defense in December 2025. Thus, the defendant failed to raise the jurisdictional defense prior to “actively participat[ing] in the litigation” for nearly two years. American Int'l Ins. Co., 468 Mass. at 120. Accordingly, the jurisdictional defense was waived and cannot be resuscitated by a rule 60 motion.¹ See Lamarche, 65 Mass. App. Ct. at 889.

Order dated December 3, 2025, denying motion to vacate affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Additionally, the defendant asserts that there was insufficient service of process; however, that argument also was waived because it was not raised in a timely manner. See Raposo v. Evans, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 379, 383-385 & n.15 (2008).