Shane Devine

The case involves plaintiffs William and Joan Baldwin who sued defendant accountants Kulch Associates, Inc. and Charles Kulch for losses from two investments totaling $20,000 in National Wood Products, Inc., which later went bankrupt. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, acting as the company's accountants, solicited the investments with false assurances about the company's finances and their own CPA status, and later advised against liquidation based on misleading financial statements. The complaint asserted seven claims, including violations of federal securities laws (Rule 10b-5 and sections 12(1) and 12(2)), the New Hampshire Uniform Securities Act, fraudulent and negligent performance of accounting services, unauthorized practice of accountancy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Before the court was the defendants' motion to dismiss counts II (in part), III, VI, and VII for failure to state a claim, with the opinion outlining the standards for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) for fraud-based claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding over whether a retired employee's $56,000 claim against the estate for past and future health insurance benefits constituted wages subject to FICA, FUTA, and income tax withholding by the trustee. The bankruptcy court ruled that it had jurisdiction under 11 U.S.C. § 505(a) to decide the tax issue and that the claim was not wages, so no taxes applied. On appeal, the district court affirmed jurisdiction but reversed on the merits, holding that payments in lieu of health benefits qualify as wages under the Internal Revenue Code based on prior case law, revenue rulings, and congressional intent to treat such amounts as subject to employment taxes.

taxesprocedure

In this bankruptcy appeal, A & J Auto Sales, a corporation, challenged the IRS's post-petition removal of its vehicles after the company filed for bankruptcy on September 13, 1995, claiming a willful violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362. The bankruptcy court found that the IRS had willfully violated the stay by continuing collection actions after the petition was filed but ruled that corporate debtors cannot recover damages under § 362(h), which applies only to individuals, and declined to award damages under the court's contempt authority in § 105. The district court affirmed, holding that the IRS's actions to obtain possession of estate property after the filing constituted a stay violation, that § 105 permits discretionary contempt sanctions for such violations even for corporations, and that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying damages due to the IRS's good-faith belief in the legality of its prepetition notices and the lack of evidence of actual damages.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Eckel Industries suing defendants including Superior Door for converting its proprietary information and assets such as engineering drawings and customer lists, along with claims of unfair trade practices and false advertising under the Lanham Act by using photos of Eckel's doors in Superior's sales materials. The court granted Superior's motion for summary judgment in part, ruling that Eckel could not recover actual monetary damages on the Lanham Act claim due to a lack of evidence showing actual consumer confusion, lost profits, or comparative product quality. It denied summary judgment on the conversion claim, holding that under New Hampshire law the tort requires only proof of dominion or control over the property without needing specific damages. The court also adjusted discovery deadlines, closing them 30 days from the order date.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

Nancy Cooper sued her former employer, Thomson Newspapers, after being fired from her position as an account executive, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act based on her back surgery and medical leave, as well as a common-law claim for wrongful discharge. Thomson moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to Thomson on the wrongful discharge claim, reasoning that New Hampshire law requires the employee to have performed a protected act encouraged by public policy and that no statutory remedy exists for the claim, but Cooper had identified no such act and the statutory claims precluded a common-law action; the court denied summary judgment in part on the remaining claims due to disputed issues of material fact regarding customer complaints and Cooper's condition.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Rossi v. Town of Pelham, plaintiff Cheryl Rossi, the outgoing town clerk and tax collector for 23 years, brought a civil rights action claiming that Pelham officials violated her Fourth Amendment rights by having a police officer enter and remain in her private office to prevent removal of town records ahead of a required succession audit, along with related state-law claims. The court considered defendants' motion for summary judgment and the parties' later motions for reconsideration of that ruling. It held that the officer's presence constituted an unreasonable search by infringing a reasonable expectation of privacy, that the town's policy specifically directing the conduct created municipal liability, and that the seizure of the plaintiff's person was not unreasonable under governing precedent; the court denied reconsideration on all grounds. The core reasoning rested on modern Fourth Amendment standards focusing on privacy expectations rather than investigative intent, combined with municipal-liability doctrine treating a facially unlawful single decision as sufficient to establish fault and causation.

civil rightsprocedure

In this diversity action, sports agent A.J. Faigin sued former NFL quarterback Jim Kelly and co-author Vic Carucci for defamation based on statements in Kelly's 1992 autobiography that accused Faigin of untrustworthy conduct while representing Kelly from 1983 to 1987. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statements were true, that Faigin (as a public figure) could not prove actual malice or reckless disregard, and that no damages were shown. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the truth of the statements and whether Kelly and Carucci acted with actual malice, while noting that damages questions are for the jury under New Hampshire law. The opinion applies First Amendment standards from cases like St. Amant v. Thompson and concludes that summary judgment is inappropriate.

torts & liabilityfree speechprocedure

This case concerned claims by two former female middle school students and a parent against the Oyster River Cooperative School District under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the district failed to adequately address repeated sexual harassment by a male classmate that included inappropriate touching, exposure, and obscene comments. The court addressed the defendant's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment along with the plaintiffs' motion to amend. It granted summary judgment to the district, concluding that the school's actions—including meeting with parents, requiring an in-person apology and counseling, and other steps—were sufficient to show it did not act with deliberate indifference. The core reasoning focused on the standard for school district liability in peer sexual harassment cases under federal civil rights statutes, noting that dissatisfaction with the chosen remedies does not establish a violation when reasonable measures were implemented.

civil rights

In this employment discrimination case, a former Dartmouth Bookstore employee alleged that she was subjected to gender- and age-based harassment by a coworker, that management failed to address her complaints, and that she was later fired in retaliation for those complaints, in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on the hostile-environment harassment claims, finding insufficient evidence that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms of employment. It denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, however, because the close timing between the plaintiff's complaints and her termination, along with other evidence, created a triable issue as to whether the employer's stated economic reason was a pretext for retaliatory animus. The ruling applied the standard summary-judgment framework and burden-shifting analysis under federal antidiscrimination law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Doris Lowry alleged that her former employer, Cabletron Systems, terminated her supervisory position because of her sex, age, and physical disabilities including carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis, in violation of the ADA, Title VII, the ADEA, and related state laws; she also asserted claims for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the § 1983 claim, the state human rights claim, the wrongful discharge claim, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, but denied the motion as to the ADA, Title VII, ADEA, and breach-of-contract claims. The court reasoned that the complaint failed to allege facts supporting certain claims, such as state action or the requisite elements of wrongful discharge, while the well-pleaded facts for the remaining claims were sufficient to survive dismissal when all reasonable inferences were drawn in the plaintiff's favor.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Mary Nedder, a former assistant professor of religious studies at Rivier College who suffered from morbid obesity, sued the college after her teaching contract was not renewed, claiming the decision was based on a perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as breach of contract. A jury found in her favor and awarded $68,974 on the ADA claim and $137,500 on the contract claim. The court ordered the college to reinstate Nedder as a fourth-year full-time faculty member in its Religious Studies Department to provide the equitable "make whole" remedy required by the ADA, citing precedents that subordinate an employer's personnel prerogatives to antidiscrimination statutes once liability is established. The court also limited the total monetary recovery to the larger award of $137,500 to avoid duplicative damages between the claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved two former bank employees who sued their employer and a supervisor under Title VII for sexual harassment, alleging that the supervisor's policy requiring female employees to hug her to receive paychecks created a hostile work environment, leading to their resignations. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss the federal claims, following the magistrate judge's recommendation. It reasoned that the alleged conduct, while unwelcome, was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, as required under established precedents. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, plaintiff Joan Long, a production worker at defendant Tillotson Healthcare Corporation's rubber glove factory, alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her after their consensual relationship ended, and that she faced retaliation after complaining about an incident involving the supervisor, in violation of Title VII and state law. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of employer knowledge of the harassment and absence of protected activity for the retaliation claim. The court granted summary judgment on the federal claims, finding no evidence that the employer knew or should have known of the alleged harassment prior to the plaintiff's late complaint, that her complaint to management concerned a tire-slashing accusation without sexual overtones and thus was not protected conduct under Title VII, and that any shift change resulting in a minor pay reduction did not constitute adverse action. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved the United States appealing a bankruptcy court's ruling that relieved Gloria Michaud of joint tax liability for disallowed charitable deductions claimed on 1980 and 1981 returns filed with her then-husband, who had been convicted of tax evasion. The bankruptcy court granted innocent spouse relief under the tax code, set the asserted liability to zero, and ordered a refund of amounts already paid. The district court upheld the decision, holding that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 11 U.S.C. § 505 to determine the tax and order a refund even without a prior administrative refund request because the matter arose as a counterclaim to the IRS's proof of claim, and it affirmed the factual findings supporting innocent spouse relief based on Michaud's lack of benefit from the deductions and the inequity of imposing liability.

taxesprocedurefederal power

In this case, plaintiff Freda Lillibridge sued her former employer Wooden Soldier, Ltd., alleging termination in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act based on a wrist injury from overuse that prevented her from handwriting orders, along with related state law claims. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ADA count after finding no genuine issue of material fact on the threshold element of disability. The court reasoned that Lillibridge produced insufficient evidence that her condition substantially limited a major life activity or that the employer perceived it as substantially limiting. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state claims without prejudice.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging that the plaintiff was evicted from a Friendly's restaurant and issued a no-trespass notice because of his physical disability, a corneal abrasion. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide the required written notice to the appropriate state authority under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(c) before filing suit, given New Hampshire's parallel anti-discrimination law. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff substantially complied with the notice requirement by timely contacting the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights by phone and later writing to the state Attorney General, which fulfilled the statutory purpose of allowing state authorities the first opportunity to address the issue. The decision drew on precedents from Title VII cases permitting substantial rather than strict compliance with procedural prerequisites in remedial civil rights statutes.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Dr. Kevin Lee alleged that defendants, including the Trustees of Dartmouth College and Dr. Richard Saunders, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by terminating his participation in the neurosurgery residency program at Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital after he developed neurological symptoms possibly consistent with multiple sclerosis or transverse myelitis. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting the claims. The court granted summary judgment to the Trustees on both claims and to Saunders on the ADA claim (with a conditional grant on the Rehabilitation Act claim), applying the summary judgment standard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and finding insufficient evidence that Lee had a qualifying disability that substantially limited a major life activity or that any discrimination occurred.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns Susan Doukas's lawsuit against MetLife for denying her two applications for mortgage disability insurance based on her history of bipolar disorder and lithium use, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the ADA claims, having already dismissed a related Fair Housing Act claim. It analyzed whether Title III applies to the substance of insurance underwriting decisions and whether a safe-harbor provision in Title V protected the insurer's practices. Finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the denials were based on actual or reasonably anticipated actuarial experience rather than serving as a subterfuge to evade the ADA, the court denied summary judgment to both parties on the primary ADA count while granting the defendant's motion on other counts.

civil rightshealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a state court divorce proceeding in which plaintiff MacFarlane was civilly arrested pursuant to a capias issued by Judge Smith for nonpayment of alimony; MacFarlane had previously accused the judge of bias and distributed critical materials. He sued the judge and opposing counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court granted both defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. It held that the attorney was a private actor not acting under color of law and that the judge enjoyed absolute judicial immunity because any alleged partiality did not place his actions in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Carl Mutter sued the Town of Salem and police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law after his arrest and prosecution for felonious sexual assault based on a minor victim's statements about incidents years earlier; he was acquitted at trial and claimed the arrest lacked probable cause. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants. It found that the officers had probable cause for the arrest warrant based on the detailed victim interview and supporting statements, and alternatively held that qualified immunity applied because a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed. The court also rejected related claims such as malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure