NHCaseLaw.com

GALWAY, J. The defendant, George Sideris, appeals his conviction and sentence for violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RSA ch. 358-A (1995 & Supp. 2007). We affirm the conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand.

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), appeals, and the plaintiff, Clark & Lavey Benefits Solutions, Inc. (C&L), crossappeals, from rulings of the Trial Court (Groff, J.). We affirm.

The plaintiffs, Steven and Lynn Couture, instituted this proposed class action to obtain redress for alleged deceptive practices engaged in by the defendants in connection with the financing of used cars purchased by the plaintiffs and members of the class. The defendants are G.W.M., Inc. doing business as the Auto-Torium, a New Hampshire automobile dealer licensed under the provisions of RSA chapter 361-A (1995 and Supp. 2002); WFS Financial, Inc., a California corporation engaged in the business of providing subprime car loans to individuals with poor credit histories and which purchased the Coutures' retail installment sales contract from Auto-Torium.; and ten additional, as-yet-unidentified, auto finance companies (referred to in the complaint as "John Does 1-10") which also purchased installment sales contracts from Auto-Torium. The amended complaint asserts claims against Auto-Torium for violation of RSA 361-A, the Retail Installment Sales of Motor Vehicles Act, and RSA 358-A (1995 and Supp. 2002), the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and for breach of contract; and also seeks to hold WFS liable as an assignee pursuant to the terms of the contract and under the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) "Holder Rule," 16 C.F.R. § 433, (count V). The matter comes before the court at this time on motions to dismiss filed by Auto-Torium and WFS. I conclude that the CPA claim must be dismissed, but that in all other respects the motions must be denied.

The nine named plaintiffs bring this proposed class action to obtain redress for alleged deceptive practices engaged in by the defendants in connection with the financing of used cars purchased by them from defendant G.W.M., Inc., doing business as the Auto-torium (hereinafter “Auto-torium”). The other named defendants are six finance companies which took assignments from Auto-torium of automobile retail installment sales contracts executed by plaintiffs and putative members of the class. Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. After carefully considering the voluminous filings submitted by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied.

This action for civil conspiracy and violation of the Consumer Protection Act, RSA 358-A, was commenced in February 2001. The plaintiffs are three creditors of the defendants Reginald Gaudette, his wife Louise Gaudette (hereinafter the Gaudettes), and/or various corporations, partnerships or other entities which the Gaudettes controlled. The remaining defendants are Jeffrey Gaudette and Lisa Robinson, son and daughter of the Gaudettes; Edith and Lionel Gaudette, mother and father of Reginald; Thomas J. Thomas, Jr., Esq., Marc L. Van De Water, Esq. and Glenn C. Raiche, Esq. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the lawyer defendants”), attorneys who provided legal services to the Gaudettes or entities which they controlled; and Mark Ring, a certified public accountant (CPA) who provided accounting services for the Gaudettes or related entities. Plaintiffs’ amended bill in equity alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs, in their capacity as creditors of the Gaudettes or entities controlled by them, from collecting on their claims or judgments by sheltering or concealing assets of the debtors through a series of fraudulent transfers and the creation of various “shell” entities. Because most if not all of the allegedly fraudulent activities of the defendants occurred in connection with proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court involving, first, R & R Associates (a partnership in which Reginald Gaudette was a partner) and, later, Gaudette himself as debtors, the lawyer defendants now move to dismiss this case on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal bankruptcy law. I conclude that the lawyer defendants’ position is correct and that their motion must be granted.