🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Jennifer C. Boal

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Appointed by Judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts 12 signed orders read

How Judge Boal decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On a motion to dismiss, Boal will deny dismissal of a putative class action and reject a parallel demand for a more definite statement where the complaint's allegations are adequate -- she does not require the heightened specificity defendants often seek at the pleading stage.

“I recommend that the District Court deny the Defendants' motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement.”

Procedural preferences

Boal is reluctant to certify questions of state law to the Massachusetts SJC where she can resolve the issue and grant summary judgment on existing law -- a litigant hoping to forestall an adverse MSJ via a certification motion should not count on it.

“this Court recommends ... that she grant Supervalu's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 62) and deny the Estate's motion to certify questions of law to the SJC (Docket No. 78).”

Cautions

Statutory pre-suit notice requirements are enforced at the pleading stage: a plaintiff who fails to ALLEGE that the required written notice was given risks Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the claim.

“Here, Butler does not allege that he provided Shire with written notice retaining his right”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Bingham (Estate of Marion Bingham) v. Supervalu, Inc.
1:13-cv-11690-IT · 2015-02-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“this Court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned that she grant Supervalu's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 62)”

Motion to certify question (plaintiff) Denied

“and deny the Estate's motion to certify questions of law to the SJC (Docket No. 78).”

Town of Lexington v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn
1:12-cv-11645-DJC · 2013-08-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the District Court deny the Defendants' motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement.”

Louis v. Bear Hill Nursing Center
1:11-cv-11540-GAO · 2014-08-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“this Court recommends that the District Court deny Bear Hill's [motion for summary judgment]; ... judgment should be denied.”

Butler v. Shire
1:16-cv-11692-MLW · 2017-03-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that the District Judge assigned to this case grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.”

Combat Zone, Inc. v. Does 1-22
3:12-cv-30086-MAP · 2013-02-15
Motion to sever (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that any efficiency gains and cost benefits to the Plaintiff from joining the Doe Defendants in a single action are substantially outweighed by fairness concerns and inefficiencies... Accordingly, this Court recommends that the District Judge assigned to this case exercise its discretion to sever Does 2-22 from this action.”

Motion to quash (defendant) Granted

“Having found that the subpoenas contain erroneous information and given the attendant risks and burdens imposed upon potentially innocent subscribers, the Court hereby quashes all twenty-two subpoenas in this case.”

El Khoury v. Goulding
1:21-cv-11036-LTS · 2023-02-10
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons included in my report and recommendation on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, I recommend that Judge Sorokin grant in part and deny in part the parties' motions to strike.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted in part
Wittkowski v. Norcliff
1:14-cv-11107-NMG · 2018-02-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Based on all of the circumstances, the Court finds that dismissal is not warranted in this case. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to recommend that the District Court dismiss this case.”

Da Veiga v. Santander Bank
1:22-cv-11364-NMG · 2025-04-18
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted in part

“For the following reasons, this Court grants in part both motions.”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“This Court denies Defendants' motion for spoliation without prejudice to renewal after the May 16, 2025, production.”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“This Court denies Da Veiga's request for sanctions and attorney's fees.”

Amyndas Pharmaceuticals v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals
1:20-cv-12254-LTS · 2024-03-29
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the following reasons, this Court grants in part and denies in part the motion. ... Accordingly, this Court orders Zealand US to remove redactions regarding the three disputed categories.”

One World, LLC v. Manolakos
1:20-cv-11837-JEK · 2024-07-18
Motions to compel (defendant) Denied

“As the Defendants have failed to show that she was in fact not adequately prepared, this Court denies their request for an order compelling One World to again provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and grant the Plaintiffs' motion for an order barring any further deposition of a corporate representative of One World.”

Motions to compel (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, I deny Chaleplis's motion for a protective order barring any further deposition and order Chaleplis to appear for a continued deposition in person in Boston at a mutually agreeable date within 30 days.”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“Attorney Kasolas's conduct in recording the deposition was improper. At this time, however, this Court declines to impose sanctions.”

SRH Holdings, LLC v. Government Employees Insurance Co.
1:23-cv-10325-DJC · 2026-01-16
Motions to compel (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court denies the motion.”

Misiph v. 360 Painting, LLC
1:22-cv-11778 · 2026-04-13
Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Granted in part

“this Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' request for sanctions.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Boal writes reports and recommendations on referred dispositive motions, directly decides discovery and sanctions matters assigned for pretrial management, and enters final decisions in Social Security cases when the parties consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Social Security sample excludes stipulated remands conceded by the agency so those agreements do not distort the claimant-outcome counts.

Put Judge Boal's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Boal actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Boal's own signed orders and cites them.