The New Hampshire Superior Court Presented the following cases for and reasons supporting orders granting a Motion to Dismiss:
Analysis of Plaintiffs Claims by Court
“Each of the defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Docs. 19–21, 24–25, 27.) The plaintiff has not objected to any of these motions, however, this alone does not mandate dismissal. See Hilario v. Reardon, 158 N.H. 56, 60 (2008) (ruling trial court erred by granting motion to dismiss because no objection was filed, rather than ruling on merits); N.H. Super. Ct. R. 13(b) (“Failure to object shall not, in and of itself, be grounds for granting the motion.”)”
Hilario v. Reardon, 158 N.H. 56, 60 (2008) – https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b245add7b0493475ed52
“In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the issue is whether “the
plaintiff’s allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit
recovery.” Barufaldi v. City of Dover, 175 N.H. 424, 427 (2022). In conducting this inquiry,
the Court must “assume the truth of the facts as alleged in the [complaint] and construe
all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. However, the Court
“need not accept allegations in the writ that are merely conclusions of law.” Beane v. Dana
S. Beane & Co., P.C., 160 N.H. 708, 711 (2010) (citation omitted). The Court should grant
the motion to dismiss if the facts derived from these sources “do not constitute a basis for
legal relief.” Barufaldi, 175 N.H. at 427.”
Barufaldi v. City of Dover, 175 N.H. 424, 427 (2022) – (link)
Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C., 160 N.H. 708, 711 (2010) – https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nh-supreme-court/1543931.html
“The Court is also mindful of the fact that the plaintiff is self-represented. “[S]elf–
represented parties are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties
represented by counsel.” In re St. Pierre, 172 N.H. 209, 217 (2019) (quotation and
citations omitted). “This mandate, however, does not prohibit courts from liberally
construing pleadings by self–represented litigants, provided that the self–represented 4
party pleads sufficient facts for the court to discern the correct cause of action.” Id.
(citations omitted). Indeed, “pleading is considered only a means to an end. The end is
accomplished if counsel can understand the dispute and the court can decide the
controversy on its merits.” Morency v. Plourde, 96 N.H. 344, 346 (1950); see also Porter
v. Dziura, 104 N.H. 89, 90 (1962) (“Pleadings should be stated with sufficient conciseness
and clarity so that the ‘case may be rightly understood.’” (quoting RSA 514:8))”
St. Pierre, 172 N.H. 209, 217 (2019) – https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5cff47138a6bc868cbd3f3d4
Morency v. Plourde, 96 N.H. 344, 346 (1950) – https://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/1950/3938-0.html
Porter v. Dziura, 104 N.H. 89, 90 (1962) – https://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/1962/4972-0.html
Law – NH RSA 514:8 – https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LIII/514/514-8.htm
“ 514:8 Abatement. – No writ, declaration, return, process, judgment or other proceeding in the courts or course of justice shall be abated, quashed or reversed for any error or mistake, where the person or case may be rightly understood by the court, nor through defect or want of form or addition only; and courts and justices may, on motion, order amendment in any such case.
Source. RS 186:10. CS 198:10. GS 207:8. GL 226:8. PS 222:7. PL 334:8. RL 390:8
“In general, a statute “does not support a private right of action for its violation” unless there exists some “express or implied
legislative intent to create such civil liability.” Marquay v. Eno, 139 N.H. 708, 715 (1995); see also State v. Martineau, 148 N.H. 259, 264 (2002) (“There is no statutory or constitutional authority for private prosecutions.”). “[W]here the legislature has intended that civil liability flow from the violation of a statute, it has often so provided.” Marquay, 139 N.H. at 715.; see, e.g., RSA 358-AL10 (deceptive trade practices); see also Berry v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc., 152 N.H. 407, 411 (2005) (explaining that child abuse reporting statute does not give rise to a civil remedy for its violation). Here, simply put,
none of the statutes cited in the complaint evince a legislative intent to create civil liability,
and therefore, the plaintiff cannot state a claim as to any of them”
Marquay v. Eno, 139 N.H. 708, 715 (1995) – https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591483f6add7b049344afbff
State v. Martineau, 148 N.H. 259, 264 (2002) – https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nh-supreme-court/1454325.html (opinion); https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nh-supreme-court/1454325.html (judgement);
