NHCaseLaw.com

Petitioner Diane Clapp ("Clapp") seeks a declaration that Respondent, the Goffstown School District ("GSD"), improperly failed to inform the New Hampshire Retirement System and its predecessor ("NHRS") of GSD's 1950 vote to enroll GSD's support staff into the NHRS. The Court held a bench trial on the matter on June 18, 2008, and finds and rules as follows.

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.

On March 24, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Petitioner's Motion for Accountant's Fees and Attorney's Fees. Having reviewed the file and considered the proffers and arguments of counsel, the Court reinstates in large part its order of January 31, 2008 granting the petitioner's motion.

BRODERICK, C.J. The defendants, Charles and Susan Stanton, appeal a judgment of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) finding them liable for breach of contract and defamation. The plaintiff, Harold Lassonde, III, doing business as Mountain View Construction, cross-appeals, challenging the amount of damages awarded on his defamation claim, and the trial court’s failure to include attorney’s fees and interest in his breach of contract award. We affirm in part, vacate in part, 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.

This suit under the Right-to-Know Law, RSA Chapter (1) 91-A, was commenced by Weare Powerful, a non-profit group composed of citizens of the Town of Weare ("Town"), against the Town, certain present and former members of the board of selectmen, the town administrator and town counsel, by a petition filed in this court on June 6, 1994.

The plaintiff files this malicious prosecution action seeking damages he claims were caused as a result of the defendant's previous filing of two law suits against him and the Terry C. and Terry M. Bennett Charitable Remainder Unitrust (the trust) in Rockingham County. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendant filed the lawsuits without probable cause and with the primary purpose of interfering with the plaintiff's lawful business activities. The defendant denies the allegations and argues, among other things, that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel preclude the plaintiff from recovering damages in the present case. For the reasons stated in this order, the court finds for the plaintiff in the amount of $434,000.

On February 27, 2002, the defendant filed a Motion to Unseal in which he asks the Court to permit him to examine the plaintiff's fee agreement with his present counsel and also asks the Court to provide him with a list of any and all sealed or ex parte filings in this case Although the defendant's motion suggests that none of the pleadings in this case should be sealed, it is clear that he has focused in on the sealing of the plaintiff's contingent fee agreement. Thus, the Court in the within order will only discuss the defendant's request in that regard. Concerning the general sealing of this case, the Court notes that because it contains a great deal of financial information about the defendant's assets and liabilities, it would be potentially damaging to all parties in this litigation to have that information disseminated to members of, the general public.

The plaintiff filed this action with twelve initial counts, most of which I dismissed prior to the case going to the jury. After seven trial days and over a day of deliberation, the jury found that defendant Beaudoin had sexually battered the plaintiff and that Muzak was liable for the sexual harassment the plaintiff and had breached its contract or covenant of good faith and fair dealing with the plaintiff. The jury did not find that Muzak had constructively discharged plaintiff in relation for reporting the sexual harassment and did not award her anything for back or front pay. Nor did the jury award her anything as a result of Muzak’s breach of contract. The jury did award her $50,000 in compensatory damages on the battery count and $75,000 compensatory damages and $1,000,000’ in punitive damages on the sexual harassment claim.