ÿWPC Dûkõ!²õéÚ_éÉÄúëìÔ†#_ƒrÊ}Õ‰TJ™´3<µÜ&ðíQu Ü@Q0É!_ÿ{‡ä=Æ'ìÇ<àE9k„Ãóž+Ž’<¶Mé×™z ”§TŸæNsm2 (ù eåJ&à÷Ö9Õðy AòòUt¿õÜ#2Y)Åz¶›?ŸÚÎÅãT÷{Z»¤^•‰SôVçgýâ‰Á 95Å–•§²{ÐÜ ý"l´Ñ_ bºjÄùz¯pQÙh0iö+Ÿ¥ŠÚ’95Ò1Á«©Œ÷jܾ´±L–ð€ÌzÏÜÀÜ\¾¾3‘ÄÊ9ÏI"-y|öHiPÙF}vôTvY’ŠÚ˜áuØ×:±¬:°€¬t™L.”\½°cÁôÑÔÅþc¯P_ª t ðd…÷y‡‰3híJÈà÷-]‰„#GV^—§h5p_À“EE‡¿Q–`‹®ÙøçH*‹¦•d@Ï'óOQe£^9XÙs½Áúß‚÷Ž…ùÏÖãÍ„+~Ø çF’“3däÜÛ´K$¬eÞ¼)ñ>â’íÜóFŽ<4jâû¸.ì´ÊFò»‹æö©ó{@¯ùa¿ 9‘ôaF¢ŸSWœë"Ú¯êJ¤¦í5 ÂŒí¶x÷*#ÁL %  0D 0(WUF 0ÆÅÞ‹nTi N½ ‚¿ ^ A wM 4Q e t mv E f a‘ N¥ >§ -å b`UFzÀÀ—È__________ BwUF”U@Ú˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡.Courier New Regular(d:2D[$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(m{(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÔÝ ƒD[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(d«(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€parties€submitted€affidavits€in€the€districtÐ ° Ðcourt,€we€eschew€any€reliance€on€the€factual€averments€containedÐ †Ö Ðtherein,€with€a€few€exceptions€that€we€elucidate€below.€€We€explainÐ \¬ Ðwhy€in€òòóóòòóóPart€II(A),€òòinfraóó.«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ Ô  ' Turner0Turner .   x˜j1s ÉL=16Xy File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT #Ý ƒD[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(d«(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€holding€depends,€of€course,€on€the€plaintiff'sÐ ° Ðallegation€as€to€when€he€first€learned€of€the€persistent€(andÐ †Ö Ðlikely€insuperable)€deficiencies€that€precluded€ABA€accreditation.€Ð \¬ ÐShould€the€proof€on€this€point€unfold€differently,€the€districtÐ 2‚ Ðcourt€is€free€to€reexamine€the€date€of€accrual.- ù- VÝ ƒD[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(d«(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€all€events,€òòGranahanóó€is€materially€distinguishable.€€Here,òòóóÐ ° Ðthe€plaintiff€presented€his€savings€statute€argument€to€the€nisiÐ †Ö Ðprius€court.€€In€contrast,€Granahan€formally€raised€his€savingsÐ \¬ Ðstatute€contention€for€the€first€time€in€the€appellate€court.€€InÐ 2‚ Ðlaunching€that€effort,€Granahan€relied€solely€on€appellateÐ X Ðargumentation,€not€"pleadings,€affidavits,€or€other€documentsÐ Þ. Ðpresented€to€the€motion€judge."€€476€N.E.2dòòóó€at€268€n.5.€€TheÐ ´  ÐAppeals€Court€refused€to€entertain€the€argument.€€òòId.óó€at€268.€€SoÐ Š Ú Ðunderstood,€òòGranahanóó€represents€nothing€more€than€the€MassachusettsÐ ` ° Ðequivalent€of€the€federal€courts'€familiar€raise„or„waive€rule.€Ð 6 †  ÐòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòTeamsters,€Chauffeurs,€Warehousemen€&€Helpers€Unionóó€v.Ð  \  ÐòòSuperline€Transp.€Co.óó,€953€F.2d€17,€21€(1st€Cir.€1992)€(warningÐ â 2  Ðthat€"legal€theories€not€raised€squarely€in€the€lower€court€cannotÐ ¸  Ðbe€broached€for€the€first€time€on€appeal").<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular  Ý ƒD[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(d«(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€plaintiff€actually€submitted€the€putative€notice€to€theÐ ° Ðdistrict€court,€and€it€is€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€We€take€no€viewÐ †Ö Ðof€its€sufficiency€vis„„vis€the€statutory€requirement. Ý ƒD[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(d«(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€acknowledge€that€the€plaintiff€has€provided€many€of€theÐ ° Ðmissing€details€concerning€these€statements€in€other€filings,€suchÐ †Ö Ðas€his€affidavits€and€briefs.€€Nevertheless,€those€documents€areÐ \¬ Ðnot€eligible€for€consideration€on€this€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòsupraóó€PartÐ 2‚ ÐII(A). dÿ.Courier New Regular(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡°»¿°XXÔÔ‡)°dª°°°»¿ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†)X«¦X°)°dªÅ#ÔÔ‡)„Ø„X)X«¦ÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†)X«¦X„)„ØY#ÔÔ#†Xd«XX)X«¦ä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€03„2502Ð K › ÐÌà@$ìàJOSEPH€Ô_ÔRODIÔ_Ô,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ ìàPlaintiff,€Appellant,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@  ìàSOUTHERN€NEW€ENGLAND€SCHOOL€OF€LAW€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<R` AßÐ S£ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà@P P ìà[Hon.€Nancy€Gertner,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` AßÐ <Œ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ !q ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìàTorruella,€Selya€and€Howard,Ð Í ÐÌòòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð yÉ! ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<$!` AßÐ %!u# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòÔ_ÔFredricÔ_Ô€J.€Grossóó€and€òòÔ_ÔFredricÔ_Ô€J.€Gross€Law€Firmóó€on€brief€forÐ  "Z% Ðappellant.Ð à"0& Ðà  àòòAllen€N.€Davidóó,€òòElizabeth€A.€Ô_ÔHouldingÔ_Ôóó€and€òòPeabody€&€Arnold€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_ÔóóÐ ¶#' Ðon€brief€for€appellees.Ð Œ$Ü( ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ '^"+'^" ‹‹ÐÓxÓÐ SIr'Â", €³â@38300„„‰€³â@‰‹‹SÐÌNovember€10,€2004Ð H(˜#. ÐÐ RHC)n$/" €³â@38300 €³â@ ‹‹RÐÐ(r'Â"0  (ÐÙ* !ÙÐ  $*t%0? ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€d«XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€is€an€appeal€from€a€terse€andÐ ° Ðuninformative€order€dismissing€a€nine„count€civil€complaint€forÐ xÈ Ðfailure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€might€be€granted.€Ð $t ÐBecause€it€is€impossible€to€tell€what€arguments€the€district€courtÐ Ð  Ðfound€persuasive,€we€have€canvassed€the€field.€€We€conclude€thatÐ | Ì Ðthe€complaint€states€one€potentially€actionable€claim€and€anotherÐ ( x  Ðthat€is€not€beyond€hope€of€repair.€€Consequently,€we€reverse€theÐ Ô$  Ðorder€of€dismissal€in€part€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.Ð €Ð  Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ ,|  Ðà ` àBecause€this€is€an€appeal€from€an€order€under€Fed.€R.Ð ôD ÐCiv.€P.€12(b)(6),€we€take€the€facts€as€they€are€alleged€in€theÐ  ð Ðplaintiff's€complaint.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSECóó€v.€òòSG€Ltd.óó,€265€F.3d€42,€44€(1st€Cir.Ð Lœ Ð2001);€òòLaChapelleóó€v.€òòBerkshire€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€142€F.3d€507,€508Ð øH Ð(1st€Cir.€1998).€€We€ignore,€however,€"bald€assertions,Ð ¤ô Ðperiphrastic€circumlocutions,€unsubstantiated€conclusions,€[and]Ð P  Ðoutright€vituperation."€€òòCorrea„Martinezóó€v.€òòArrillaga„Belendezóó,€903Ð üL ÐF.2d€49,€52€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€Once€the€scene€is€set,€we€recount€theÐ ¨ø  Ðtravel€of€the€case.Ð T!¤" Ðà@¤¤#ìàò òA.€€òòThe€Factsóó.ó óˆÐ #P$ Ðà ` àIn€July€of€1997,€plaintiff„appellant€Joseph€Rodi,€aÐ È$ & Ðwould„be€law€student€who€resided€in€New€Jersey,€received€aÐ t&Ä!( Ðrecruitment€letter€from€Francis€J.€Larkin,€dean€of€Southern€NewÐ ° ÐEngland€School€of€Law€(SNESL).€€The€letter€stated€in€pertinent€partÐ \¬ Ðthat€the€accreditation€committee€of€the€American€Bar€AssociationÐ X Ð(ABA)€had€voted€to€recommend€SNESL€for€"provisional€accreditation,"Ð ´  Ða€status€that€would€be€granted€upon€ratification€of€theÐ ` ° Ðrecommendation€by€two€other€ABA€bodies.€€The€letter€also€statedÐ  \  Ðthat€SNESL€was€"highly€confident"€of€receiving€the€neededÐ ¸  Ðratifications€and€that€the€future€of€the€school€"has€never€beenÐ d´  Ðbrighter."€€Because€the€plaintiff€intended€to€take€the€New€JerseyÐ `  Ðbar€examination,€the€prospect€of€accreditation€was€criticallyÐ ¼  Ðimportant€to€him;€New€Jersey€requires€bar€applicants€to€hold€lawÐ h¸ Ðdegrees€from€ABA„accredited€institutions.Ð d Ðà ` àLarkin's€letter€ended€with€a€pitch€for€enrollment.€€TheÐ À Ðsolicitation€bore€fruit;€the€plaintiff€enrolled€at€SNESL€thatÐ l¼ Ðmonth.€€He€received€a€catalogue€from€SNESL€containing,€inter€alia,Ð h Ða€statement€(in€the€same€type€size€and€font€as€the€surroundingÐ Ä Ðtext)€to€the€effect€that:€€"The€Law€School€makes€no€representationÐ pÀ  Ðto€any€applicant€or€student€that€it€will€be€approved€by€theÐ !l" ÐAmerican€Bar€Association€prior€to€the€graduation€of€anyÐ È"$ Ðmatriculating€student."€€The€complaint€alleges€that,€despite€theÐ t$Ä& Ðcheery€optimism€of€Larkin's€letter,€the€dean€knew€full€well€thatÐ  &p!( ÐSNESL€had€identifiable€deficiencies€that€would€almost€certainlyÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âpreclude€ABA€accreditation.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThe€ABA€denied€SNESL's€application€for€accreditation€inÐ ° Ðâ âSeptember€of€1997.€€As€a€result,€the€plaintiff€consideredÐ \¬ Ðtransferring€to€an€accredited€law€school€for€his€second€year€ofÐ X Ðstudy.€€Word€of€his€ambivalence€reached€the€dean's€office.€€DavidÐ ´  ÐM.€Prentiss,€who€was€then€the€acting€dean,€wrote€to€the€plaintiffÐ ` ° Ðin€order€to€"make€sure"€that€he€was€"fully€informed€of€the€school'sÐ  \  Ðcurrent€status€regarding€ABA€accreditation."€€That€communiqueÐ ¸  Ðstated€in€substance€that€the€school€had€improved€the€four€areasÐ d´  Ðfound€deficient€by€the€ABA€and€that€there€should€be€"no€cause€forÐ `  Ðpessimism"€about€the€school€achieving€accreditation€before€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff's€forecasted€graduation€date.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àIn€reliance€on€these€and€other€representations€ð"ð€all€ofÐ d Ðwhich€the€complaint€says€were€knowingly€false€ð"ð€the€plaintiffÐ À Ðremained€at€SNESL.€€He€came€to€regret€the€choice:€€according€to€theÐ l¼ Ðcomplaint,€SNESL€knew,€but€elected€not€to€disclose,€that€the€ABAÐ h Ðwas€highly€critical€of€SNESL;€that€any€faint€hope€of€attainingÐ Ä Ðaccreditation€depended€upon€a€complete€overhaul€of€the€faculty,Ð pÀ  Ðadministration,€curriculum,€and€student€body;€and€that€the€level€ofÐ !l" Ðnon„compliance€made€the€prospect€of€SNESL's€near„term€accreditationÐ È"$ Ðremote.€€To€compound€this€mendacity,€the€school€frustratedÐ t$Ä& Ðstudents'€attempts€to€learn€about€the€true€status€of€theÐ  &p!( Ðaccreditation€pavane.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àIn€November€of€1999€ð"ð€during€the€plaintiff's€third€yearÐ x)È$, Ðof€legal€studies€ð"ð€the€ABA€denied€SNESL's€renewed€application€Ô_ÔforÐ $+t&. Ðaccreditation.€€Ô_ÔSNESLÔ_Ô€failed€to€appeal€to€the€ABA's€House€ofÐ ° ÐDelegates€as€it€previously€had€promised.€€Instead,€the€schoolÐ \¬ Ðcashiered€half€of€its€full„time€faculty,€thereby€straying€evenÐ X Ðfurther€from€ABA„mandated€standards.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€completed€his€studies€in€June€of€2000.€Ð ` ° ÐÔ_ÔSNESLÔ_Ô€remained€unaccredited.€€Notwithstanding€his€diploma,€theÐ  \  Ðplaintiff€has€not€been€able€to€sit€for€the€New€Jersey€barÐ ¸  Ðexamination.Ð d´  Ðà@ˆˆìàò òB.€€òòTravel€of€the€Caseóó.ó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àOn€July€18,€2002,€the€plaintiff€sued€Ô_ÔSNESLÔ_Ô,€Larkin,€andÐ Ø( ÐÔ_ÔPrentissÔ_Ô€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€District€ofÐ „Ô ÐNew€Jersey.€€The€district€court€dismissed€that€action€for€want€ofÐ 0€ Ðin€personam€jurisdiction€on€April€10,€2003.€€òòÔ_ÔRodiÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòS.€New€Ô_ÔEnglÔ_Ô.Ð Ü, ÐSch.€of€Lawóó,€255€F.€Supp.€2d€346,€351€(Ô_ÔD.N.J.Ô_Ô€2003).€€On€June€9,Ð ˆØ Ð2003,€the€plaintiff,€acting€pro€se,€sued€the€same€defendants€in€theÐ 4„ ÐUnited€States€District€Court€for€the€District€of€Massachusetts.€Ð à0 ÐGrounding€jurisdiction€in€diversity€of€citizenship€and€theÐ ŒÜ  Ðexistence€of€a€controversy€in€the€requisite€amount,€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ 8!ˆ" Ð1332(a),€his€complaint€incorporated€copies€of€the€Larkin€andÐ ä"4$ ÐÔ_ÔPrentissÔ_Ô€letters€and€limned€nine€statements€of€claim.Ð $à& Ðà ` àWe€confine€our€discussion€to€the€two€claims€that€theÐ <&Œ!( Ðplaintiff€presses€on€appeal:€€(i)€that€the€defendants'€statementsÐ è'8#* Ðconstituted€actionable€fraud€or€misrepresentation,€and€(ii)€thatÐ ”)ä$, ÐÔ_ÔSNESLÔ_Ô's€actions€violated€a€consumer€protection€statute,€Mass.€Gen.Ð @+&. ÐLaws€ch.€93A,€ðððð€1„11.€€The€defendants€filed€a€timely€motion€toÐ ° Ðdismiss,€positing€that€the€complaint,€for€a€variety€of€reasons,Ð \¬ Ðfailed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€As€toÐ X Ðthe€fraudulent€misrepresentation€count,€the€defendants€asseveratedÐ ´  Ðthat€the€"misrepresentations"€were€non„actionable€statements€ofÐ ` ° Ðopinion;€that€the€supposed€fraud€had€not€been€alleged€with€theÐ  \  Ðrequisite€particularity;€that,€in€all€events,€the€plaintiff'sÐ ¸  Ðprofessed€reliance€on€those€statements€was€unreasonable;€and€thatÐ d´  Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€had€run.€€With€respect€to€the€ChapterÐ `  Ð93A€count,€the€defendants€averred€that€the€complaint€failed€toÐ ¼  Ðstate€an€actionable€claim€because€the€alleged€misrepresentationsÐ h¸ Ðwere€insufficient€to€trigger€the€prophylaxis€of€the€statute,€and,Ð d Ðmoreover,€the€complaint€failed€to€allege€that€a€demand€letter€hadÐ À Ðbeen€sent€before€suit.€€òòSeeóó€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€93A,€ðð€9(3).Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff,€still€acting€pro€se,€filed€an€oppositionÐ h Ðto€the€motion€to€dismiss€in€which€he€made€a€point„by„point€rebuttalÐ Ä Ðof€the€defendants'€asseverations.€€As€part€of€his€opposition,€heÐ pÀ  Ðtendered€five€affidavits,€two€additional€letters,€and€an€array€ofÐ !l" Ðother€documents.€€Ô_ÔSNESLÔ_Ô€filed€a€reply€and,€not€to€be€outdone,Ð È"$ Ðproffered€a€welter€of€documents€(including€copies€of€its€cataloguesÐ t$Ä& Ðfor€the€years€in€question).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àThe€district€court€abjured€oral€argument€and€ruled€on€theÐ Ì'#* Ðpapers.€€It€entered€a€cryptic€order,€providing€in€its€entirety€thatÐ x)È$, Ðthe€motion€to€dismiss€should€be€allowed€"for€substantially€theÐ $+t&. ÐÔ_Ôreasons€outlined€in€defendants'€memorandum€of€law."€€The€plaintiffÐ ° Ðpromptly€moved€for€reconsideration,€suggesting,€among€other€things,Ð \¬ Ðthat€if€the€district€court€"found€the€complaint's€allegations€tooÐ X Ðscanty,€it€could€have€granted€leave€to€amend."€€The€court€deniedÐ ´  Ðthe€motion€without€comment.€€This€counseled€appeal€ensued.Ð ` ° Ðò òII.€€DISCUSSIONó óÐ  \  Ðà ` àWe€divide€our€discussion€of€the€issues€into€severalÐ Ô$  Ðsegments.€€First,€we€ascertain€what€materials€are€properly€beforeÐ €Ð  Ðus.€€We€then€proceed€count€by€count€and€theory€by€theory.€€In€soÐ ,|  Ðdoing,€we€omit€any€reference€to€the€seven€counts€that€the€plaintiffÐ Ø( Ðhas€elected€not€to€defend€on€appeal.Ð „Ô Ðà@˜ ˜ ìàò òA.€€òòConfiguring€the€Recordóó.ó óˆÐ 0€ Ðà ` àThe€threshold€issue€here€involves€a€determination€of€whatÐ øH Ðlegal€standard€the€district€court€applied€(or€should€have€applied)Ð ¤ô Ðin€examining€the€pleadings€before€it.€€The€defendants€styled€theirÐ P  Ðmotion€as€a€motion€to€dismiss,€but€the€parties€then€profferedÐ üL Ðexhibits€containing€information€extraneous€to€the€complaint.€€ThatÐ ¨ø  Ðpresents€a€quandary.Ð T!¤" Ðà ` àThe€Civil€Rules€provide€that€when€"matters€outside€theÐ #P$ Ðpleadings€are€presented€to€and€not€excluded€by€the€court,€theÐ ¬$ü& Ðmotion€shall€be€treated€as€one€for€summary€judgment€and€disposed€ofÐ X&¨!( Ðas€provided€in€Rule€56."€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€12(b).€€The€districtÐ (T#* Ðcourt's€order€is€silent€as€to€whether€it€elected€to€convert€theÐ °)%, Ðmotion€to€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Consequently,€we€mustÐ \+¬&. Ðdecide€"whether€the€court€actually€took€cognizance€of€[theÐ ° Ðsupplemental€material],€or€invoked€Rule€56,€in€arriving€at€itsÐ \¬ Ðdecision."€€òòGarita€Hotel€Ltd.€P'shipóó€v.€òòPonce€Fed.€Bankóó,€958€F.2dÐ X Ð15,€19€(1st€Cir.€1992).Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€state€of€this€record€is€tenebrous.€€We€do€know,Ð ` ° Ðhowever,€that€the€district€court€embraced€the€defendants'Ð  \  Ðmemorandum€of€law€ð"ð€and€that€memorandum€relied€upon€the€RuleÐ ¸  Ð12(b)(6)€standard,€not€the€quite€different€Rule€56€standard.€€InÐ d´  Ðthe€same€vein,€both€sides€have€briefed€the€case€on€appeal€as€ifÐ `  ÐRule€12(b)(6),€rather€than€Rule€56,€controls.€€Under€the€uniqueÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances€of€this€case,€considerations€of€fundamental€fairnessÐ h¸ Ðcounsel€in€favor€of€following€the€parties'€and€the€lower€court'sÐ d Ðlead€and€testing€the€arguments€on€appeal€under€the€jurisprudence€ofÐ À ÐRule€12(b)(6).€€We€adopt€that€course.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àOnce€that€decision€has€been€made,€the€standard€of€reviewÐ h Ðbecomes€straightforward.€€Orders€granting€motions€to€dismiss€underÐ Ä ÐRule€12(b)(6)€engender€de€novo€review.€€òòMass.€Sch.€of€Law€atÐ pÀ  ÐAndover,€Inc.óó€v.€òòAm.€Bar€Ass'nóó,€142€F.3d€26,€40€(1st€Cir.€1998).€Ð !l" ÐIn€ruling€on€whether€a€plaintiff€has€stated€an€actionable€claim,€anÐ È"$ Ðinquiring€court,€be€it€a€trial€or€appellate€court,€must€considerÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€complaint,€documents€annexed€to€it,€and€other€materials€fairlyÐ  &p!( Ðincorporated€within€it.€€òòIn€re€Colonial€Mortg.€Bankers€Corp.óó,€324Ð Ì'#* ÐF.3d€12,€15„16€(1st€Cir.€2003);€òòCoganóó€v.€òòPhoenix€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€310Ð x)È$, ÐF.3d€238,€241€n.4€(1st€Cir.€2002).€€This€sometimes€includesÐ $+t&. Ðdocuments€referred€to€in€the€complaint€but€not€annexed€to€it.€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐòòCoyneóó€v.€òòCroninóó,€___€F.3d€___,€___€(1st€Cir.€2004)€[No.€03„2357,Ð \¬ Ðslip€op.€at€11];€òòBeddallóó€v.€òòState€St.€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó,€137€F.3dÐ X Ð12,€17€(1st€Cir.€1998);€òòFudgeóó€v.€òòPenthouse€Int'l,€Ltd.óó,€840€F.2dÐ ´  Ð1012,€1015€(1st€Cir.€1988).€€Finally,€the€jurisprudence€of€RuleÐ ` ° Ð12(b)(6)€permits€courts€to€consider€matters€that€are€susceptible€toÐ  \  Ðjudicial€notice.€€òòColonial€Mortg.€Bankersóó,€324€F.3d€at€15„16;Ð ¸  ÐòòBoatengóó€v.€òòInterAmerican€Univ.óó,€210€F.3d€56,€60€(1st€Cir.€2000).Ð d´  Ðà ` àGiving€force€to€these€principles,€we€may€consider€on€thisÐ `  Ðappeal€the€facts€alleged€in€the€complaint,€the€Larkin€and€PrentissÐ ¼  Ðletters€(which€were€annexed€to€it),€and€any€matters€that€may€beÐ h¸ Ðjudicially€noticed.€€We€also€may€consider€SNESL's€1997„1998Ð d Ðcatalogue,€alleged€by€the€plaintiff€to€comprise€a€part€of€theÐ À Ðcontract€between€the€parties,€as€a€document€fairly€incorporatedÐ l¼ Ðinto€the€complaint.€€òòSeeóó€òòBeddallóó,€137€F.3d€at€17.€€However,€we€mayÐ h Ðnot€consider€at€this€stage€the€array€of€affidavits€andÐ Ä Ðmiscellaneous€documents€proffered€by€the€parties.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àHaving€identified€the€materials€that€are€properly€beforeÐ !l" Ðus,€we€briefly€address€the€question€of€affirmative€defenses.€€On€aÐ È"$ ÐRule€12(b)(6)€motion,€the€court's€inquiry€sometimes€may€encompassÐ t$Ä& Ðaffirmative€defenses.€€Everything€depends€on€the€record.€€As€aÐ  &p!( Ðgeneral€rule,€a€properly€raised€affirmative€defense€can€beÐ Ì'#* Ðadjudicated€on€a€motion€to€dismiss€so€long€as€(i)€the€factsÐ x)È$, Ðestablishing€the€defense€are€definitively€ascertainable€from€theÐ $+t&. Ðcomplaint€and€the€other€allowable€sources€of€information,€and€(ii)Ð ° Ðthose€facts€suffice€to€establish€the€affirmative€defense€withÐ \¬ Ðcertitude.€€òòColonial€Mortg.€Bankersóó,€324€F.3d€at€16.Ð X Ðà ` àAgainst€this€backdrop,€we€examine€the€bases€on€which€theÐ ´  Ðdistrict€court€could€have€predicated€its€decision.€€We€take€eachÐ ` ° Ðcount€and€each€ground€in€turn.Ð  \  Ðà@Ø Ø ìàò òB.€€òòThe€Fraudulent€Misrepresentation€Countóó.ó óˆÐ ¸  Ðà ` àThe€defendants€advance€a€motley€of€potential€defenses€toÐ €Ð  Ðthe€plaintiff's€fraudulent€misrepresentation€claim.€€We€addressÐ ,|  Ðthem€sequentially.Ð Ø( Ðà ` àò ò1.€€òòIn€Generalóó.ó ó€€We€start€by€testing€the€vitality€of€theÐ „Ô Ðclaim€as€a€whole.€€We€will€uphold€a€dismissal€on€this€ground€"onlyÐ Lœ Ðif€the€plaintiff's€factual€averments€hold€out€no€hope€of€recoveryÐ øH Ðon€any€theory€adumbrated€in€[his]€complaint."€€òòId.óó€at€15€(citingÐ ¤ô ÐòòRoganóó€v.€òòMeninoóó,€175€F.3d€75,€77€(1st€Cir.€1999)).€€Our€task€is€notÐ P  Ðto€decide€whether€the€plaintiff€ultimately€will€prevail€but,Ð üL Ðrather,€whether€he€is€entitled€to€undertake€discovery€inÐ ¨ø  Ðfurtherance€of€the€pleaded€claim.€€òòScheueróó€v.€òòRhodesóó,€416€U.S.€232,Ð T!¤" Ð236€(1974).€€In€this€process,€the€fact€that€the€plaintiff€filed€theÐ #P$ Ðcomplaint€pro€se€militates€in€favor€of€a€liberal€reading.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¬$ü& ÐòòBoivinóó€v.€òòBlackóó,€225€F.3d€36,€43€(1st€Cir.€2000)€(explaining€thatÐ X&¨!( Ð"courts€hold€pro€se€pleadings€to€less€demanding€standards€thanÐ (T#* Ðâ âthose€drafted€by€lawyers").Ð °)%, Ðà ` àSitting€in€diversity,€we€look€to€the€substantive€law€ofÐ ° Ðâ âthe€forum€state€(here,€Massachusetts)€to€guide€our€analysis.€Ð \¬ ÐòòCorreiaóó€v.€òòFitzgeraldóó,€354€F.3d€47,€53€(1st€Cir.€2003).€€UnderÐ X ÐMassachusetts€law,€a€claim€for€misrepresentation€entails€a€falseÐ ´  Ðstatement€of€material€fact€made€to€induce€the€plaintiff€to€act€andÐ ` ° Ðreasonably€relied€upon€by€him€to€his€detriment.€€òòZimmermanóó€v.€òòKentóó,Ð  \  Ð575€N.E.2d€70,€74€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1991).€€The€plaintiff's€claimÐ ¸  Ðpasses€this€screen.Ð d´  Ðà ` àAs€to€Larkin,€the€complaint,€read€liberally,€alleges€theÐ `  Ðfollowing:€€(i)€Larkin€knew€that€the€plaintiff€was€a€New€JerseyÐ ¼  Ðresident€who€wanted€to€practice€law€there;€(ii)€he€also€knew€thatÐ h¸ Ðthe€plaintiff€could€not€sit€for€the€New€Jersey€bar€unless€heÐ d Ðgraduated€from€an€accredited€law€school;€(iii)€he€sent€a€letter€toÐ À Ðthe€plaintiff€in€New€Jersey€stating€that€SNESL€was€"highlyÐ l¼ Ðconfident"€of€receiving€accreditation,€knowing€that€this€statementÐ h Ðwas€materially€false€because€SNESL€had€substantial€deficienciesÐ Ä Ðthat€would€make€accreditation€difficult€if€not€impossible;€and€(iv)Ð pÀ  Ðthe€plaintiff,€relying€on€Larkin's€letter,€enrolled€at€SNESL,€paidÐ !l" Ðsubstantial€sums€for€tuition,€and€invested€three€years€of€his€lifeÐ È"$ Ðin€mastering€its€curriculum.€€We€think€that€these€allegations,€ifÐ t$Ä& Ðproven,€would€make€out€a€viable€claim€for€fraudulentÐ  &p!( Ðmisrepresentation.€€òòSeeóó€òòKerróó€v.€òòShurtleffóó,€105€N.E.€871,€872€(Mass.Ð Ì'#* Ð1914)€(holding€that€college€committed€fraudulent€misrepresentationÐ x)È$, Ðby€falsely€telling€prospective€student€that€it€could€"make€[him]€aÐ $+t&. ÐD.M.D."€when€student€enrolled€and€graduated€but€school€lacked€theÐ ° Ðauthority€to€grant€the€degree).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àA€similar€analysis€applies€to€the€plaintiff's€fraudulentÐ X Ðmisrepresentation€claim€against€Prentiss.€€Prentiss's€statementÐ ´  Ðthat€there€was€"no€cause€for€pessimism"€about€the€prospect€of€near„Ð ` ° Ðterm€accreditation€is€materially€false€if€there€was€in€fact€causeÐ  \  Ðfor€pessimism€due€to€the€extent€of€the€school's€known€shortcomings.€Ð ¸  ÐThe€plaintiff€alleges€that€Prentiss€knowingly€made€this€falseÐ d´  Ðstatement€in€order€to€induce€him€to€remain€enrolled€at€SNESL€andÐ `  Ðthat€he€(Rodi)€took€the€bait€and€relied€on€it€to€his€detriment.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àAs€pleaded,€SNESL€is€vicariously€liable€for€theseÐ h¸ Ðfraudulent€misrepresentations.€€It€is€reasonable€to€infer€from€theÐ d Ðallegations€contained€in€the€complaint€that€Larkin€and€PrentissÐ À Ðwere€high„ranking€employees€of€SNESL€acting€within€the€scope€ofÐ l¼ Ðtheir€employment.€€Consequently,€their€misrepresentations€areÐ h Ðattributable€to€SNESL€on€respondeat€superior€grounds.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ä Ðòògenerallyóó€òòKavanaghóó€v.€òòTrs.€of€Boston€Univ.óó,€795€N.E.2d€1170,€1174Ð pÀ  Ð(Mass.€2003)€(citing€Restatement€(Third)€of€Agency€ðð€2.04€(Tent.Ð !l" ÐDraft€No.€2,€2001)).€€Accordingly,€the€complaint,€on€its€face,Ð È"$ Ðstates€a€claim€for€fraudulent€misrepresentation€against€all€threeÐ t$Ä& Ðdefendants.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àò ò2.€€òòMatters€of€Opinionóó.ó ó€€The€defendants'€effort€to€short„Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âcircuit€this€claim€is€multifaceted.€€Their€first€counter€is€thatÐ ”)ä$, Ðthe€cited€statements€were,€at€most,€statements€of€opinion.€€That€isÐ ° Ðtrue,€in€a€sense,€but€it€does€not€get€the€defendants€very€far.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àA€statement,€though€couched€in€terms€of€opinion,€mayÐ X Ðconstitute€a€statement€of€fact€if€it€may€reasonably€be€understoodÐ ´  Ðby€the€reader€or€listener€as€implying€the€existence€of€facts€thatÐ ` ° Ðjustify€the€statement€(or,€at€least,€the€non„existence€of€any€factsÐ  \  Ðincompatible€with€it).€€òòSeeóó€òòMcEneaneyóó€v.€òòChestnut€Hill€RealtyÐ ¸  ÐCorp.óó,€650€N.E.2d€93,€96€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ d´  ÐòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ðð€539€(1977)€(explaining€that€"[a]Ð `  Ðstatement€of€opinion€as€to€facts€not€disclosed€[may]€be€interpretedÐ ¼  Ð.€.€.€as€an€implied€statement€that€the€facts€known€to€the€maker€areÐ h¸ Ðnot€incompatible€with€his€opinion");€òòcf.óó€òòLevinsky's,€Inc.óó€v.€òòWal„Ð d ÐMart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€127€F.3d€122,€127€(1st€Cir.€1997)€("A€statementÐ À Ðcouched€as€an€opinion€that€presents€or€implies€the€existence€ofÐ l¼ Ðfacts€which€are€capable€of€being€proven€true€or€false€can€beÐ h Ðactionable.").€€Thus,€it€is€an€actionable€misrepresentation€for€aÐ Ä Ðcorporation€falsely€to€tell€investors€that€a€specific€project€is€"aÐ pÀ  Ðgreat€success"€that€is€"proceeding€smoothly€.€.€.€and€better€thanÐ !l" Ðexpected"€in€order€to€keep€them€from€pulling€the€plug.€€òòStolzoffóó€v.Ð È"$ ÐòòWaste€Sys.€Int'l,€Inc.óó,€792€N.E.2d€1031,€1036„37,€1042€(Mass.€App.Ð t$Ä& ÐCt.€2003).€€Similarly,€it€is€an€actionable€misrepresentation€for€aÐ  &p!( Ðcar€dealer€to€tell€a€buyer€that€he€"believes"€a€vehicle€is€inÐ Ì'#* Ðâ â"good"€condition€when€he€knows€that€it€has€significant€mechanicalÐ x)È$, Ðdefects.€€òòBriggsóó€v.€òòCarol€Cars,€Inc.óó,€553€N.E.2d€930,€933€(Mass.Ð ° Ð1990).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àThe€Restatement,€favorably€referenced€in€theÐ X ÐMassachusetts€cases,€gives€a€stunningly€appropriate€example:Ð ´  ÐÓÓà8 ` à[W]hen€an€auditor€who€is€known€to€haveÐ ` ° Ðexamined€the€books€of€a€corporation€statesÐ 6 †  Ðthat€it€is€in€sound€financial€condition,€heÐ  \  Ðmay€reasonably€be€understood€to€say€that€hisÐ â 2  Ðexamination€has€been€sufficient€to€permit€himÐ ¸  Ðto€form€an€honest€opinion€and€that€what€he€hasÐ ŽÞ  Ðfound€justifies€his€conclusion.€€The€opinionÐ d´  Ðthus€becomes€in€effect€a€short€summary€ofÐ :Š  Ðthose€facts.€€When€he€is€reasonably€understoodÐ `  Ðas€conveying€such€a€statement,€he€is€subjectÐ æ6 Ðto€liability€if€he€.€.€.€has€not€found€factsÐ ¼  Ðthat€justify€the€opinion,€on€the€basis€of€hisÐ ’â Ðmisrepresentation€of€the€implied€facts.Ðh¸` x` x ÐÌÓÓRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€539,€cmt.€b.€€The€parallel€isÐ d Ðapparent.€€The€plaintiff's€complaint€alleges€that€the€ABA€hasÐ À Ðformulated€certain€objective€criteria€that€inform€its€decisionsÐ l¼ Ðabout€whether€and€when€to€accredit€law€schools.€€It€also€allegesÐ h Ðthat€Larkin,€knowing€of€these€criteria,€wrote€a€letter€to€theÐ Ä Ðplaintiff€implying€that€the€school€was€reasonably€capable€ofÐ pÀ  Ðsatisfying€them.€€If€Larkin€did€know€of€disqualifying€and€probablyÐ !l" Ðirremediable€deficiencies€(as€the€plaintiff€has€alleged),€hisÐ È"$ Ðstatement€that€SNESL€was€"highly€confident"€of€accreditation€wasÐ t$Ä& Ðactionably€misleading.€€Prentiss's€statement€that€there€was€"noÐ  &p!( Ðcause€for€pessimism"€about€the€fate€of€the€school's€renewedÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âaccreditation€application€is€subject€to€much€the€same€Ô_Ôanalysis.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àTo€be€sure,€knowing€falsity€is€much€easier€to€allege€thanÐ ° Ðâ âto€prove.€€Here,€however,€the€district€court€jettisoned€theÐ \¬ Ðfraudulent€misrepresentation€count€at€the€pleading€stage.€€GivenÐ X Ðthe€liberal€standards€of€Rule€12(b)(6),€that€dismissal€cannot€restÐ ´  Ðon€the€"opinion"€defense.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àò ò3.€€òòFailure€to€Plead€With€Particularityóó.ó ó€€For€the€mostÐ  \  Ðpart,€a€civil€complaint€need€only€contain€"a€short€and€plainÐ Ô$  Ðstatement€of€the€claim€showing€that€the€pleader€is€entitled€toÐ €Ð  Ðrelief."€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€8(a)(2).€€For€that€reason,€"[Ô_Ôg]reatÔ_ÔÐ ,|  Ðspecificity€is€ordinarily€not€required€to€survive€a€Rule€12(b)(6)Ð Ø( Ðmotion."€€òòÔ_ÔGaritaÔ_Ô€Hotelóó,€958€F.2d€at€17.€€That€proposition,€however,Ð „Ô Ðis€not€universally€applicable.€€"Cases€alleging€fraud€ð"ð€and€forÐ 0€ Ðthis€purpose,€misrepresentation€is€considered€a€species€of€fraud€ð"ðÐ Ü, Ðconstitute€an€exception€to€[it]."€€òòAlternative€Sys.€Concepts,€Inc.óóÐ ˆØ Ðv.€òòÔ_ÔSynopsysÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€374€F.3d€23,€29€(1st€Cir.€2004).€€ThatÐ 4„ Ðexception,€codified€in€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€9(b),€requires€that€fraud€beÐ à0 Ðalleged€with€particularity.€€òòId.óó€€This€heightened€pleading€standardÐ ŒÜ  Ðis€satisfied€by€an€averment€"of€the€who,€what,€where,€and€when€ofÐ 8!ˆ" Ðthe€allegedly€false€or€fraudulent€representation."€€òòId.óó;€òòaccordóóÐ ä"4$ ÐòòPowersóó€v.€òòBoston€Cooper€Corp.óó,€926€F.2d€109,€111€(1st€Cir.€1991);Ð $à& ÐòòMcGintyóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔBerangerÔ_Ô€Volkswagen,€Inc.óó,€633€F.2d€226,€228„29€&€n.2Ð <&Œ!( Ð(1st€Cir.€1980).Ð è'8#* Ðà ` àIn€this€instance,€the€defendants€assert€that€the€districtÐ ”)ä$, Ðcourt€was€warranted€in€dismissing€the€fraudulent€misrepresentationÐ @+&. Ðclaim€for€failure€to€abide€by€these€strictures.€€In€addressing€thatÐ ° Ðassertion,€we€note€that€the€specificity€requirement€extends€only€toÐ \¬ Ðthe€particulars€of€the€allegedly€misleading€statement€itself.€€òòSeeóóÐ X ÐòòÔ_ÔEducadoresÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔPuertorriqueosÔ_Ô€en€Ô_ÔAccið;ðnÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔHernndezÔ_Ôóó,€367€F.3d€61,€66Ð ´  Ð(1st€Cir.€2004).€€The€other€elements€of€fraud,€such€as€intent€andÐ ` ° Ðknowledge,€may€be€averred€in€general€terms.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð  \  Ð9(b).Ð ¸  Ðà ` àAfter€careful€Ô_ÔperscrutationÔ_Ô,€we€deem€this€line€of€defenseÐ d´  Ðunavailing.€€The€Larkin€and€Ô_ÔPrentissÔ_Ô€letters€are€unarguablyÐ `  Ðspecific€as€to€speaker,€content,€context,€and€time.€€TheseÐ ¼  Ðstatements€are€sufficient€to€shield€the€fraudulentÐ h¸ Ðmisrepresentation€count€from€dismissal€at€the€pleading€stage.€€òòSeeóó,Ð d Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòPowersóó,€926€F.2d€at€111;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPhilippeóó€v.€òòShape,€Inc.óó,Ð À Ð688€F.€Supp.€783,€786„87€(D.€Me.€1988)€(holding€that€documentsÐ l¼ Ðaffixed€to€complaint€that€contained€alleged€misrepresentationsÐ h Ðsatisfied€Rule€9(b)).ò òó óÐ Ä Ðà ` àWe€note,€however,€that€the€complaint€attributes€aÐ pÀ  ÐÔ_ÔgallimaufryÔ_Ô€of€other€substantially€similar€statements€to€theÐ !l" Ðdefendants.€€We€count€no€fewer€than€four€such€allegedly€fraudulentÐ È"$ Ðmisrepresentations:€€(i)€that€a€Ô_ÔSNESLÔ_Ô€employee€had€reported€thatÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€1997€application€for€accreditation€came€"within€an€inch€of€ABAÐ  &p!( Ðapproval";€(ii)€that€an€admissions€officer€proclaimed€that€Ô_ÔSNESLÔ_ÔÐ Ì'#* ÐÔ_Ô"willÔ_Ô€be€accredited";€(iii)€that€Ô_ÔSNESLÔ_Ô€claimed€it€had€received€aÐ x)È$, Ðspecial€time€waiver€from€the€ABA€because€its€"case€[forÐ $+t&. Ðaccreditation]€was€so€strong";€and€(iv)€that€if€accreditation€wereÐ ° Ðagain€denied,€Ô_ÔSNESLÔ_Ô€would€appeal€directly€to€the€ABA's€governingÐ \¬ Ðbody.€€None€of€these€four€statements€is€pleaded€with€theÐ X Ðparticularity€required€under€Rule€9(b).€€Insofar€as€we€can€tellÐ ´  Ðfrom€the€complaint,€each€such€statement€was€made€by€an€unidentifiedÐ ` ° Ðperson€at€an€unnamed€place€and€at€an€unspecified€time.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€SuchÐ  \  Ðgossamer€allegations€are€patently€inadequate€under€Rule€9(b).€€òòSeeóóÐ ¸  ÐòòAlternative€Sys.€Conceptsóó,€374€F.3d€at€30;€òòAhmedóó€v.€òòRosenblattóó,€118Ð d´  ÐF.3d€886,€889€(1st€Cir.€1997).Ð `  Ðà ` àWhen€a€claim€sounding€in€fraud€contains€a€hybrid€ofÐ ¼  Ðallegations,€some€of€which€satisfy€the€strictures€of€Rule€9(b)€andÐ h¸ Ðsome€of€which€do€not,€an€inquiring€court€may€sustain€the€claim€onÐ d Ðthe€basis€of€those€specific€allegations€that€are€properly€pleaded.€Ð À ÐòòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔVessÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔCibaÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔGeigyÔ_Ô€Corp.€USAóó,€317€F.3d€1097,€1105€(9th€Cir.Ð l¼ Ð2003);€òòÔ_ÔSerabianÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔAmoskeagÔ_Ô€Bank€Shares,€Inc.óó,€24€F.3d€357,€366Ð h Ð(1st€Cir.€1994).€€So€it€is€here.€€For€that€reason,€we€take€no€viewÐ Ä Ðeither€as€to€whether€the€plaintiff,€on€remand,€should€be€permittedÐ pÀ  Ðto€amend€his€complaint€to€add€particulars€anent€the€other€fourÐ !l" Ðstatements€or€as€to€whether,€absent€an€amendment,€evidence€of€thoseÐ È"$ Ðstatements€may€be€introduced€at€trial€in€support€of€the€allegationÐ t$Ä& Ðthat€the€plaintiff€reasonably€relied€on€the€Larkin€and€Ô_ÔPrentissÔ_ÔÐ  &p!( ÐÔ_Ôletters.€€In€the€first€instance,€such€matters,€should€they€arise,Ð ° Ðare€for€the€district€court.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àò ò4.€€òòReasonable€Relianceóó.ó ó€€Reasonable€reliance€is,€ofÐ X Ðcourse,€an€element€of€a€fraudulent€misrepresentation€claim€underÐ Ð  ÐMassachusetts€law.€€òòZimmermanóó,€575€N.E.2d€at€76.ò òó ó€€The€defendantsÐ | Ì Ðstrive€to€persuade€us€that€the€disclaimer€placed€in€the€school'sÐ ( x  Ðcatalogue€ð"ð€disclaiming€any€"representation€to€any€applicant€orÐ Ô$  Ðstudent€that€[SNESL]€will€be€approved€by€the€American€BarÐ €Ð  ÐAssociation€prior€to€the€graduation€of€any€matriculating€student"Ð ,|  Ðð"ð€renders€any€reliance€by€the€plaintiff€on€Larkin's€and€Prentiss'sÐ Ø( Ðepistles€unreasonable€òòasóó€òòaóó€òòmatteróó€òòofóó€òòlawóó.€€We€are€not€convinced.Ð „Ô Ðà ` àUnder€Massachusetts€law,€the€reasonableness€of€a€party'sÐ 0€ Ðreliance€ordinarily€constitutes€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€Ð Ü, ÐòòMass.€Laborers'€Health€&€Welfare€Fundóó€v.€òòPhilip€Morris,€Inc.óó,€62€F.Ð ˆØ ÐSupp.€2d€236,€242€(D.€Mass.€1999);€òòCataldo€Ambul.€Serv.,€Inc.óó€v.Ð 4„ ÐòòCity€of€Chelseaóó,€688€N.E.2d€959,€962€(Mass.€1998).€€When,€however,Ð à0 Ðthe€facts€alleged€in€the€complaint€preclude€a€finding€of€reasonableÐ ŒÜ  Ðreliance,€a€court€may€enter€an€order€of€dismissal€under€RuleÐ 8!ˆ" Ð12(b)(6).€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòMass.€Laborers'€Health€&€Welfare€Fundóó,€62€F.Ð ä"4$ ÐSupp.€2d€at€242;€òòSaxon€Theatre€Corp.óó€v.€òòSageóó,€200€N.E.2d€241,€244Ð $à& Ð(Mass.€1964).€€The€defendants€argue€that€the€disclaimer,Ð <&Œ!( Ðincorporated€by€reference€in€the€plaintiff's€complaint,€makes€thisÐ è'8#* Ðâ âsuch€a€case.Ð ”)ä$, Ðà ` àIn€mounting€this€argument,€the€defendants€distort€theÐ ° Ðâ âfraudulent€misrepresentation.€€They€insist€that€the€plaintiff'sÐ \¬ Ðasserted€injury€flows€from€a€broken€promise€of€accreditation€(i.e.,Ð X Ðthat€he€was€promised€accreditation€that€did€not€occur).€€Since€theÐ ´  Ðdisclaimer€flatly€contradicts€any€such€representation,€theÐ ` ° Ðdefendants€say,€reliance€on€that€promise€was€objectivelyÐ  \  Ðunreasonable.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àThis€argument€erects,€and€then€attacks,€a€straw€man.€€AsÐ d´  Ðsaid,€the€plaintiff's€complaint€alleges€that€the€defendants€falselyÐ `  Ðimplied€that€SNESL€had€the€capacity€to€achieve€near„termÐ ¼  Ðaccreditation.€€This€is€a€meaningful€distinction.€€It€is€one€thingÐ h¸ Ðfor€an€actor€to€demur€when€asked€to€guarantee€a€third€party'sÐ d Ðactions.€€It€is€quite€another€for€an€actor€to€mislead€a€person€intoÐ À Ðbelieving€that€the€actor€itself€possesses€means€and€abilities€fullyÐ l¼ Ðwithin€its€control.€€Given€this€distinction,€the€defendants'Ð h Ðreliance€on€the€disclaimer€is€misplaced:€€inasmuch€as€theÐ Ä Ðdisclaimer€does€not€cover€the€alleged€misrepresentations,€it€cannotÐ pÀ  Ðdefeat€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòHitachi€Credit€Am.€Corp.óó€v.€òòSignet€Bankóó,€166€F.3dÐ !l" Ð614,€630„631€(4th€Cir.€1999)€(holding€that€a€contracting€party€mayÐ È"$ Ðrecover€for€fraud€notwithstanding€"specific€disclaimers€that€do€notÐ t$Ä& Ðcover€the€allegedly€fraudulent€contract„inducing€representations").Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àIt€is,€of€course,€arguable€that€the€proof€at€summaryÐ Ì'#* Ðjudgment€or€at€trial€may€show€that€the€disclaimer€does€coverÐ x)È$, Ðwhatever€misrepresentations€(if€any)€were€actually€made.€€But€evenÐ $+t&. Ðif€the€defendants'€characterization€of€the€plaintiff's€fraudulentÐ ° Ðmisrepresentation€claim€was€on€the€mark,€we€could€not€affirm€theÐ \¬ Ðorder€of€dismissal€on€this€ground.€€We€explain€briefly.Ð X Ðà ` àUnder€Massachusetts€law,€"a€party€may€not€contract€out€ofÐ ´  Ðfraud."€€òòTurneróó€v.€òòJohnson€&€Johnsonóó,€809€F.2d€90,€95€(1st€Cir.Ð ` ° Ð1986).€€With€this€in€mind,€Massachusetts€courts€consistently€haveÐ  \  Ðheld€that€disclaimers€do€not€automatically€defeat€fraudulentÐ ¸  Ðmisrepresentation€claims.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBatesóó€v.€òòSouthgateóó,€31€N.E.2dÐ d´  Ð551,€558€(Mass.€1941);€òòSound€Techniques,€Inc.óó€v.€òòHoffmanóó,€737Ð `  ÐN.E.2d€920,€924€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€2000);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòVMark€Software,Ð ¼  ÐInc.óó€v.€òòEMC€Corp.óó,€642€N.E.2d€587,€594€n.11€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1994)Ð h¸ Ð(collecting€cases).Ð d Ðà ` àAt€the€motion€to€dismiss€stage,€information€such€as€theÐ À Ðconspicuousness€of€the€disclaimer€and€the€parties'€discussionsÐ l¼ Ðconcerning€it€is€largely€undeveloped.€€These€details€are€relevant,Ð h Ðas€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€formation€of€the€contract€willÐ Ä Ðshed€light€upon€the€disclaimer's€meaning€and€effect.€€òòSeeóó€òòTurneróó,Ð pÀ  Ð809€F.2d€at€96€(stating€that€when€dealing€with€an€ambiguousÐ !l" Ðdisclaimer,€"the€agreement€is€to€some€extent€left€undefined,€andÐ È"$ Ðthe€plaintiff's€understanding€of€the€agreement€logically€may€beÐ t$Ä& Ðcolored€by€the€defendant's€prior€statements,€fraudulent€orÐ  &p!( Ðotherwise").€€On€an€empty€record,€we€would€have€no€principledÐ Ì'#* Ðchoice€but€to€decline€the€defendants'€invitation€to€hold,€as€aÐ x)È$, Ðmatter€of€law,€that€there€is€no€possible€set€of€circumstances€underÐ $+t&. Ðwhich€the€disclaimer€might€prove€ineffective.€€òòSeeóó€òòV.S.H.€Realty,Ð ° ÐInc.óó€v.€òòTexaco,€Inc.óó,€757€F.2d€411,€418€(1st€Cir.€1985)€(cautioningÐ \¬ Ðagainst€deciding€whether€an€exculpatory€clause€precludes€aÐ X Ðmisrepresentation€claim€"without€development€of€a€factual€record").Ð ´  Ðà ` àò ò5.€€òòStatute€of€Limitationsóó.ó ó€€The€defendants€have€a€finalÐ ` ° Ðfallback€position.€€They€assert€that,€even€if€the€fraudulentÐ ( x  Ðmisrepresentation€claim€is€actionable,€it€is€time„barred.€€WeÐ Ô$  Ðexplore€this€possibility.Ð €Ð  Ðà ` àTo€a€limited€extent,€a€statute€of€limitations€defense€canÐ ,|  Ðbe€considered€on€a€Rule€12(b)(6)€motion.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòLaChapelleóó,Ð Ø( Ð142€F.3d€at€509.€€The€key€is€whether€the€complaint€and€anyÐ „Ô Ðdocuments€that€properly€may€be€read€in€conjunction€with€it€showÐ 0€ Ðbeyond€doubt€that€the€claim€asserted€is€out€of€time.€€òòId.óóÐ Ü, Ðà ` àMassachusetts€law€provides€that€an€action€in€tort€ð"ð€ofÐ ˆØ Ðwhich€fraudulent€misrepresentation€is€a€species€ð"ð€"shall€beÐ 4„ Ðcommenced€only€within€three€years€next€after€the€cause€of€actionÐ à0 Ðaccrues."€€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€260,€ðð€2A.€€A€claim€for€fraudulentÐ ŒÜ  Ðmisrepresentation€does€not€begin€to€accrue€until€"a€plaintiffÐ 8!ˆ" Ðlearns€or€reasonably€should€have€learned€of€the€misrepresentation."€Ð ä"4$ ÐòòKentóó€v.€òòDupreeóó,€429€N.E.2d€1041,€1043€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1982);€òòaccordóóÐ $à& ÐòòPatsosóó€v.€òòFirst€Albany€Corp.óó,€741€N.E.2d€841,€846€(Mass.€2001);Ð <&Œ!( ÐòòMcEneaneyóó,€650€N.E.2d€at€97.€€In€this€context,€courts€sometimes€askÐ è'8#* Ðwhen€sufficient€indicia€of€trouble€ð"ð€storm€warnings,€so€to€speak€ð"ðÐ ”)ä$, Ðshould€have€been€apparent€to€a€reasonably€prudent€person.€€òòSeeóó,Ð @+&. Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòWolinetzóó€v.€òòBerkshire€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€361€F.3d€44,€47„48€(1stÐ ° ÐCir.€2004);€òòYoungóó€v.€òòLeponeóó,€305€F.3d€1,€8€(1st€Cir.€2002).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€hand,€the€plaintiff's€complaint€allegesÐ X Ðthat€he€learned€of€persistent€deficiencies€precluding€ABAÐ ´  Ðaccreditation€at€an€unspecified€date€in€November€of€1999.€€ThereÐ ` ° Ðare€no€facts€alleged€in€the€complaint€that€require€an€inference€ofÐ  \  Ðan€earlier€accrual€date.€€As€of€that€time,€then,€the€plaintiffÐ ¸  Ðshould€have€figured€out€that€the€defendants'€rodomontade€about€theÐ d´  Ðschool's€capabilities€and€the€imminence€of€accreditation€was€quiteÐ `  Ðlikely€pie€in€the€sky.€€On€that€basis,€the€plaintiff€should€haveÐ ¼  Ðcommenced€his€action€no€later€than€November€of€2002€(the€preciseÐ h¸ Ðdate€is€inconsequential,€for€reasons€that€shortly€will€becomeÐ d Ðapparent).€€Because€this€action€was€not€docketed€until€June€9,Ð À Ð2003,€a€cursory€glance€would€appear€to€validate€the€defendants'Ð l¼ Ðassertion€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð h ÐòòJolicoeuróó€v.€òòS.€New€Engl.€Sch.€of€Lawóó,€104€Fed.€Appx.€745,€746„47Ð Ä Ð(1st€Cir.€2004)€(per€curiam)€(holding€a€similar€action,€filed€byÐ pÀ  Ðone€of€the€plaintiff's€classmates€on€June€18,€2003,€to€be€time„Ð !l" Ðbarred).Ð È"$ Ðà ` àAppearances€sometimes€are€deceiving€ð"ð€and€this€is€such€anÐ t$Ä& Ðinstance.€€Here,€unlike€in€òòJolicoeuróó,€the€plaintiff€filed€anÐ  &p!( Ðantecedent€suit€in€the€District€of€New€Jersey€on€July€18,€2002€ð"ðÐ Ì'#* Ðwell€within€the€putative€limitations€period.€€Although€that€caseÐ x)È$, Ðwas€dismissed€on€April€10,€2003,€the€dismissal€was€not€on€theÐ $+t&. Ðmerits,€but,€rather,€for€want€of€personal€jurisdiction€over€theÐ ° Ðnamed€defendants€(SNESL,€Larkin,€and€Prentiss).€€òòRodióó,€255€F.€Supp.Ð \¬ Ð2d€at€351.Ð X Ðà ` àThis€history€is€significant€because,€under€MassachusettsÐ ´  Ðlaw,€if€an€action€is€duly€commenced€within€the€limitations€periodÐ ` ° Ðand€then€dismissed€for€"any€matter€of€form,"€the€plaintiff€isÐ  \  Ðentitled€to€"commence€a€new€action€for€the€same€cause€within€oneÐ ¸  Ðyear€after€the€dismissal."€€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€260,€ðð€32.€€TheÐ d´  Ðsavings€statute€applies,€inter€alia,€to€an€action€originally€filedÐ `  Ðand€dismissed€in€a€court€of€another€state€or€in€a€federal€districtÐ ¼  Ðcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòBoutietteóó€v.€òòDickinsonóó,€768€N.E.2d€562,€563„64€(Mass.Ð h¸ ÐApp.€Ct.€2002);€òòLiberaceóó€v.€òòConwayóó,€574€N.E.2d€1010,€1012€(Mass.Ð d ÐApp.€Ct.€1991).Ð À Ðà ` àWe€have€no€doubt€that,€for€purposes€of€this€savingsÐ l¼ Ðstatute,€dismissals€for€want€of€personal€jurisdiction€areÐ h Ðappropriately€classified€as€dismissals€arising€out€of€matters€ofÐ Ä Ðform.€€òòCf.óó€òòCiampaóó€v.€òòBeverly€Airport€Comm'nóó,€650€N.E.2d€816,€817Ð pÀ  Ð(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1995)€(holding€that€"dismissal€for€bringing€anÐ !l" Ðaction€in€the€wrong€court€is€'a€matter€of€form'€within€the€meaningÐ È"$ Ðof€ðð€32").€€After€all,€as€the€Supreme€Judicial€Court€ofÐ t$Ä& ÐMassachusetts€wrote€almost€two€centuries€ago€in€describing€anÐ  &p!( Ðearlier€version€of€the€law,€the€legislature€enacted€the€savingsÐ Ì'#* Ðstatute€to€ensure€that€"where€[a]€plaintiff€has€been€defeated€byÐ x)È$, Ðsome€matter€òònot€affecting€the€meritsóó,€some€defect€or€informality,Ð $+t&. Ðwhich€he€can€remedy€or€avoid€by€a€new€process,"€the€statute€ofÐ ° Ðlimitations€"shall€not€prevent€him€from€doing€so."€€òòCoffinóó€v.Ð \¬ ÐòòCottleóó,€33€Mass.€(16€Pick.)€383,€386€(1835)€(emphasis€supplied).€Ð X ÐA€dismissal€for€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction€is€the€paradigmaticÐ ´  Ðexample€of€a€decision€not€on€the€merits€that€can€be€cured€by€newÐ ` ° Ðprocess€in€a€different€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòTeva€Pharm.,€USA,€Inc.óó€v.€òòFDAóó,Ð  \  Ð182€F.3d€1003,€1008€(D.C.€Cir.€1999).Ð ¸  Ðà ` àThat€ends€this€aspect€of€the€matter.€€This€action€and€theÐ d´  Ðearlier€New€Jersey€action€are€sisters€under€the€skin;€they€involveÐ `  Ðthe€same€parties,€the€same€events,€the€same€nucleus€of€operativeÐ ¼  Ðfacts,€and€the€same€causes€of€action.€€By€means€of€the€savingsÐ h¸ Ðstatute,€the€plaintiff€had€one€year€from€the€dismissal€of€hisÐ d Ðtimely€New€Jersey€action€ð"ð€until€April€10,€2004€ð"ð€to€file€anew.€€HeÐ À Ðinstituted€the€action€sub€judice€on€June€9,€2003.€€His€fraudulentÐ l¼ Ðmisrepresentation€claim€is€therefore€timely.Ð h Ðà ` àIn€an€effort€to€blunt€the€force€of€the€savings€statute,Ð Ä ÐSNESL€raises€the€red€flag€of€waiver.€€It€asserts€that€because€theÐ pÀ  Ðplaintiff€first€set€forth€the€savings€statute€argument€in€hisÐ !l" Ðopposition€to€the€defendants'€motion€to€dismiss,€he€is€not€entitledÐ È"$ Ðto€benefit€from€it.€€SNESL's€flag„waving€overlooks,€however,€thatÐ t$Ä& Ða€court€asked€to€dismiss€a€complaint€on€statute€of€limitationsÐ  &p!( Ðgrounds€may€examine€not€only€the€complaint€but€also€such€otherÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âdocuments€as€may€appropriately€be€considered€under€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð x)È$, Ð12(b)(6).€€òòSeeóó€òòBlackstone€Realty€LLCóó€v.€òòFDICóó,€244€F.3d€193,€197Ð ° Ð(1st€Cir.€2001).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àHere,€the€facts€that€the€plaintiff€relies€on€to€show€theÐ X Ðapplicability€of€the€savings€statute€(e.g.,€the€date€that€he€filedÐ ´  Ðthe€original€action,€the€nature€of€that€action,€the€date€it€wasÐ ` ° Ðdismissed,€and€the€basis€for€the€dismissal)€are€all€susceptible€toÐ  \  Ðjudicial€notice.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Evid.€201.€€Those€facts€may,Ð ¸  Ðtherefore,€be€considered€in€assessing€the€force€of€the€limitationsÐ d´  Ðdefense.€€òòSeeóó€òòColonial€Mortg.€Bankersóó,€324€F.3d€at€15„16;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ `  ÐòòKowalskióó€v.€òòGagneóó,€914€F.2d€299,€305€(1st€Cir.€1990)€("It€is€well„Ð ¼  Ðaccepted€that€federal€courts€may€take€judicial€notice€ofÐ h¸ Ðproceedings€in€other€courts€if€those€proceedings€have€relevance€toÐ d Ðthe€matters€at€hand.").Ð À Ðà ` àSNESL's€citation€to€òòGranahanóó€v.€òòCommonwealthóó,€476€N.E.2dÐ l¼ Ð266€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1985),€does€not€alter€this€conclusion.€€In€aÐ h Ðdiversity€case,€procedure,€unlike€substance,€is€governed€by€federalÐ Ä Ðlaw.€€òòSeeóó€òòCorreiaóó,€354€F.3d€at€53€("Federal€courts€sitting€inÐ pÀ  Ðdiversity€apply€state€substantive€law€and€federal€proceduralÐ !l" Ðrules.").€€Under€federal€procedural€precedents,€there€has€been€noÐ È"$ Ðwaiver:€€the€plaintiff€presented€developed€argumentation€on€theÐ t$Ä& Ðâ âsavings€statute€to€the€lower€court,€and€thus€preserved€that€issueÐ  &p!( Ðfor€appellate€review.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòB€&€T€Masonry€Constr.€Co.óó€v.€òòPub.€Serv.Ð ° ÐMut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€382€F.3d€36,€40€(1st€Cir.€2004).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àTo€say€more€on€this€issue€would€be€supererogatory.€€AtÐ X Ðthis€stage€of€the€game,€the€statute€of€limitations€affords€no€basisÐ ´  Ðfor€dismissal€of€the€plaintiff's€fraudulent€misrepresentationÐ ` ° Ðclaim.׃D ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  \  Ðà@Ô Ô ìàò òC.€€òòThe€Chapter€93A€Claimóó.ó óˆÐ ¸  Ðà ` àThe€situation€concerning€the€plaintiff's€claim€under€theÐ €Ð  ÐMassachusetts€Consumer€Protection€Act€is€less€clear„cut.€€BeforeÐ ,|  Ðbringing€suit€under€that€statute,€a€plaintiff€must€mail€to€theÐ Ø( Ðdefendant€a€"written€demand€for€relief,€identifying€the€claimantÐ „Ô Ðand€reasonably€describing€the€unfair€or€deceptive€act€or€practiceÐ 0€ Ðrelied€upon."€€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€93A,€ðð€9(3).€€This€notificationÐ Ü, Ðmust€be€furnished€no€fewer€than€thirty€days€prior€to€the€filing€ofÐ ° Ðsuit.€€òòId.óó€€The€statutory€notice€requirement€is€not€merely€aÐ \¬ Ðprocedural€nicety,€but,€rather,€"a€prerequisite€to€suit."€Ð X ÐòòEntrialgoóó€v.€òòTwin€City€Dodge,€Inc.óó,€333€N.E.2d€202,€204€(Mass.Ð ´  Ð1975).€€Furthermore,€"as€a€special€element"€of€the€cause€of€action,Ð ` ° Ðit€must€be€alleged€in€the€plaintiff's€complaint.€€òòId.óó€Ð  \  Ðà ` àIn€this€instance,€neither€the€plaintiff's€complaint€norÐ ¸  Ðthe€documents€attached€thereto€mention€any€such€notification.€€ThatÐ d´  Ðis€sufficient€ground€to€justify€dismissal€of€the€Chapter€93A€claim.€Ð `  ÐòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCity€of€Bostonóó€v.€òòAetna€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€506€N.E.2d€106,Ð ¼  Ð109€(Mass.€1987);€òòSpiliosóó€v.€òòCohenóó,€647€N.E.2d€1218,€1220„21€(Mass.Ð h¸ ÐApp.€Ct.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGooleyóó€v.€òòMobil€Oil€Corp.óó,€851€F.2d€513,Ð d Ð515€(1st€Cir.€1988)€(explaining€that,€in€order€to€survive€a€RuleÐ À Ð12(b)(6)€motion,€a€complaint€must€"set€forth€factual€allegations,Ð l¼ Ðeither€direct€or€inferential,€respecting€each€material€elementÐ h Ðnecessary€to€sustain€recovery€under€some€actionable€legal€theory").Ð Ä Ðà ` àThis€ruling€has€no€effect€on€the€plaintiff's€fraudulentÐ pÀ  Ðmisrepresentation€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòYorkóó€v.€òòSullivanóó,€338€N.E.2d€341,€346Ð !l" Ð(Mass.€1975)€(explaining€that€"the€[notice]€requirement€is€aÐ È"$ Ðprerequisite€to€an€action€under€[Chapter€93A,€ðð€9],€but€nothing€inÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€statute€makes€it€a€prerequisite€to€any€other€remedy€availableÐ  &p!( Ðto€aggrieved€consumers").€€Moreover,€it€may€represent€no€more€thanÐ Ì'#* Ða€temporary€victory€for€the€defendants.€€A€failure€to€allegeÐ x)È$, Ðcompliance€with€the€statutory€notice€requirement€is€not€necessarilyÐ $+t&. Ða€death€knell€for€a€Chapter€93A€claim.€€Massachusetts€courtsÐ ° Ðtypically€have€allowed€plaintiffs€to€amend€in€order€to€cure€thisÐ \¬ Ðkind€of€modest€pleading€defect.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòJacobsóó€v.€òòYamaha€MotorÐ X ÐCorp.óó,€649€N.E.2d€758,€761€(Mass.€1995);€òòParkeróó€v.€òòD'Avolioóó,€664Ð ´  ÐN.E.2d€858,€861€n.4€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1996).€€Federal€practice€is€noÐ ` ° Ðless€permissive.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€15(a)€(stating€that€leave€toÐ  \  Ðamend€"shall€be€freely€given€when€justice€so€requires").Ð ¸  Ðà ` àAllowing€an€opportunity€to€amend€is€especially€fittingÐ d´  Ðhere.€€Our€reasons€are€fivefold.€€First,€the€plaintiff€filed€theÐ `  Ðcomplaint€pro€se,€and€"courts€[should]€endeavor,€within€reasonableÐ ¼  Ðlimits,€to€guard€against€the€loss€of€pro€se€claims€due€to€technicalÐ h¸ Ðdefects."€€òòBoivinóó,€225€F.3d€at€43.€€Second,€a€fraudulentÐ d Ðmisrepresentation,€actionable€at€common€law,€often€can€form€theÐ À Ðbasis€for€a€Chapter€93A€claim.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,òòóó€òòAdamsóó€v.€òòLiberty€Mut.Ð l¼ ÐIns.€Co.óó,€799€N.E.2d€130,€140€n.19€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€2003);òòóó€òòLevingsóóÐ h Ðv.€òòForbes€&€Wallace,€Inc.óó,€396€N.E.2d€149,€154€(Mass.€App.€Ct.Ð Ä Ð1979);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòVMark€Softwareóó,€642€N.E.2d€at€595€(collectingÐ pÀ  Ðcases).€ò òó ó€So€here:€€apart€from€the€question€of€notice,€theÐ !l" Ðplaintiff's€allegations€of€fraudulent€misrepresentation€state€aÐ È"$ Ðcolorable€claim€for€relief€under€Chapter€93A.€€Third,€the€plaintiffÐ t$Ä& Ðvouchsafed€in€his€opposition€to€the€motion€to€dismiss,€and€nowÐ  &p!( Ðâ âreaffirms,€that€he€did€in€fact€furnish€the€statutorily€requiredÐ Ì'#* Ðnotice.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó ó€€Fourth,€we€do€not€know€whether€the€district€court€evenÐ ° Ðâ âfocused€on€this€defect€(as€we€have€said,€the€district€court€did€notÐ \¬ Ðstate€a€particularized€ground€for€dismissing€this€claim).ò òó ó€€Finally,Ð X Ðthe€plaintiff,€even€without€knowing€the€precise€basis€for€theÐ ´  Ðdistrict€court's€order€of€dismissal,€did€seek€leave€to€amend€asÐ ` ° Ðpart€of€his€reconsideration€request€(an€overture€that€the€districtÐ  \  Ðcourt€denied€without€any€explanation).Ð ¸  Ðà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€declared€long€ago€that€"the€purpose€ofÐ d´  Ðpleading€is€to€facilitate€a€proper€decision€on€the€merits."€€òòConleyóóÐ `  Ðv.€òòGibsonóó,€355€U.S.€41,€48€(1957).€€The€view€that€the€pleading€ofÐ ¼  Ðcases€is€a€game€in€which€every€miscue€should€be€fatal€is€antitheticÐ h¸ Ðto€the€spirit€of€the€federal€rules.€€òòCf.óó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€1Ð d Ð(explaining€that€the€federal€rules€designed€to€achieve,€inter€alia,Ð À Ðthe€"just"€resolution€of€disputes).€€Each€case€is€sui€generis.€Ð l¼ ÐHere,€however,€the€circumstances€cry€out€for€affording€theÐ h Ðplaintiff€a€fair€opportunity€to€replead€his€Chapter€93A€claim.€Ð Ä ÐAccordingly,€we€direct€the€district€court,€on€remand,€to€grant€theÐ pÀ  Ðplaintiff€that€opportunity.Ð !l" Ðò òIII.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ È"$ Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€For€the€reasons€elaborated€above,Ð $à& Ðwe€reverse€the€district€court's€order€insofar€as€it€dismisses€theÐ <&Œ!( Ðfraudulent€misrepresentation€count.€€We€affirm€the€order€insofar€asÐ è'8#* Ðit€dismisses€the€Chapter€93A€count€but€direct€that€the€plaintiff€beÐ ° Ðafforded€leave€to€amend€that€count.€€The€portion€of€the€orderÐ \¬ Ðdismissing€the€other€seven€counts€in€the€complaint€has€not€beenÐ X Ðcontested,€and,€accordingly,€we€leave€that€portion€of€the€orderÐ ´  Ðintact.Ð ` ° ÐÌà ` àò òòòAffirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€and€remanded€forÐ ¸  Ðfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinionóó.€€òòTwo„thirds€costsÐ €Ð  Ðshall€be€taxed€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffóó.ó ó