NHCaseLaw.com

PER CURIAM. The petitioners are court stenographers who seek a declaration that the respondents, the New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts and the New Hampshire Supreme Court, are equitably estopped from firing them except for good cause based only upon poor job performance or misconduct. They have moved to recuse all current and retired supreme court justices who participated in issuing Administrative Order 2004-02, which initiated the process of terminating the petitioners’ employment.

HORTON, J., retired, specially assigned under RSA 490:3. The plaintiffs appeal an order of the Superior Court (Hollman, J.) dismissing their petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm the result, albeit on different grounds.

Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment that respondent's zoning ordinance prohibiting body piercing in the Town of Plaistow is unconstitutional, that the Town may regulate but not prohibit body piercing, and that petitioner is authorized to practice body piercing in his Plaistow store. Respondent objects and claims that its zoning ordinance is valid and constitutional, and that petitioner may not practice body piercing in the Town of Plaistow. The court held a trial on the merits on August 2, 2001, which continued on January 17, 2002.

The petitioners, fifteen court stenographers currently employed with the New Hampshire Superior Court (“the superior court”), collectively bring this Petition for Declaratory Judgment requesting the court determine that respondents, the Administrative Office of the Courts (“the AOC”) and the New Hampshire Supreme Court (“the supreme court”), are equitably estopped from terminating petitioners as employees of the State of New Hampshire except for just cause based on poor individual job performance or misconduct. The respondents object and move to dismiss the petitioners’ petition, asserting, inter alia: (1) the petitioners have an adequate remedy at law and are therefore precluded from bringing this action in equity; and (2) the petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court conducted a hearing on May 21, 2004. For the following reasons, the respondents’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.