NHCaseLaw.com

HICKS, J. The plaintiff, Estate of Marcus R. Sicotte (the Estate), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Houran, J.) dismissing its legal malpractice case against the defendant law firm, Lubin & Meyer, P.C. (L&M). We affirm.

Pending before the court is the defendant Frederick Allfrey's Motion in Limine to Limit Damages (court index 64), to which the plaintiff objects (court index 67). By his motion, the defendant seeks to exclude from damages any amount written off by the plaintiffs insurer.

This is a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiffs, Philip J. ("Philip") and Catherine ("Catherine") Sica, against the defendants, John C. Britton, M.D. ("Dr. Britton") anal Surgical Associates of Rochester, P.C. The plaintiffs allege Dr. Britton negligently performed a surgery on Philip, causing injuries and losses to Philip and loss of consortium to Catherine. The defendants now move in limine to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing medical expenses written off by Philip's medical care providers. The plaintiffs object. Neither party has requested a hearing on this motion in limine, nor does the court find that a hearing would assist it in determining the pending issue. Accordingly, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 58, the court acts on the pending motion on the basis of the pleadings and record before it.

The petitioner, Sara Realty, LLC, (“Sara Realty”), brings this action against Country Pond Fish and Game Club, Inc. (“CPFGC”), seeking to have the Court declare and rule that CPFGC “has and continues to engage in a private nuisance” by virtue of its “engaging in and allowing . . . outdoor gun shooting activities” without having effectuated “adequate noise control or abatement measures” after its removal of trees and vegetation and its terrain alterations within an area of its property situated close to that of Sara Realty. See particularly Petition for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief, III, B. and C. and IV, 1 and 2. The petitioner seeks, as well, to have the Court issue injunctive relief prohibiting CPFGC “from engaging in and allowing any outdoor shooting activities until and unless . . . . [it] has implemented adequate noise control measures.” Id.

BRODERICK, C.J. This is an interlocutory appeal, see Sup. Ct. R. 8, from rulings of the Portsmouth Family Division (DeVries, J.), entered on the recommendation of a Marital Master (Fishman, M.), denying the respondent’s motion to dismiss. We affirm and remand.

DUGGAN, J. In these consolidated cases, the petitioners, Christopher Bennett, Alycia Bennett, and Bennett Landscaping, Inc. (collectively Bennett), appeal two rulings by the Trial Court (McHugh, J.) concerning attorney’s fees. We hold that RSA 676:17, II (Supp. 2007) required the trial court to award attorney’s fees to the respondent, Town of Hampstead (town), because the town prevailed in its action for injunctive relief against the petitioners. We further hold that, because the trial court did not find that Bennett’s due process rights were violated, Bennett is not entitled to attorney’s fees for its declaratory judgment action against the town. Accordingly, we affirm.

In this civil action, the plaintiff, MBNA America Bank, NA ("MBNA"), sought to enforce an arbitration award against the defendant, Troy T. Cornock ("the defendant"). On March 20, 2007, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and found that the arbitration award was unenforceable as a matter of law. However, the defendant has filed multiple counterclaims against MBNA which require resolution. Presently before the Court are the defendant's: (1) Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and for Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Production of Documents; and (3) Motion to Add Additional Cross Party Plaintiff. MBNA objects to all the motions. The Court held a hearing on the matter on May 3, 2007. After consideration of the pleadings, argument, and applicable law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

NOW COMES the defendant, Donald Laro, by his attorneys, Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., and files this objection to plaintiffs' motion to compel, and states as follows:

The parties are before the Court in a civil action concerning a telephone jamming operation said to have been engaged in by defendants during the November, 2002 elections. That jamming operation was intended to disrupt or frustrate a "Get Out The Vote" telephone effort on the part of the plaintiffs.

Before the court is one of several similar lawsuits concerning the alleged failure of numerous insurance companies to refund unearned insurance premiums to their clients. Sharon Dunn and Robin Preve (the "plaintiffs") are purchasers of credit life and credit disability insurance issued by American Heritage Life Insurance Company ("the defendant" or "AHL"), a credit insurer. The plaintiffs have brought an action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the defendant, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) restitution; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) conversion; and (6) equitable relief including an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust, and an order requiring AHL to implement controls to assure the prompt refund of unearned premiums. The plaintiffs now move for class certification as to Count I (Breach of Contract), contending that this case satisfies the requirements of Superior Court Rule 27-A. The defendant objects. Upon review of the parties' pleadings and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.