Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

STATE OF NE\A/ I{AN4PSHIRI]

CAITROLL, SS"

SUPERIOR COURT
Starbrite Leasing, Inc., et al
\,'.

Tor,r,ti

of llarrtiett et al

Docket,No. zt e-zo I 5-CV-ooo53


IT
T'he plaintiff"s,

ON I}E,trEN

Starbrite Leasing Inc., ("Starrbrite"), Edr,r,arcj C. Furlong,

III

("Furlottg"), ancl Lil' h4an Snort,mribile Rentals, Iirc. ("l,il'


MAn',) (collectivelv,,the

piaintiffs"), fiied this action against the def'enciants, tire Tortn


of Bartiett (,,the Tor,r,n,,),
the Bartlett Police Department, the Bartlett Recreiitional Department,
the Bartlett
Viiiage Water Precinct, and the Carroll Countl, Sheriff,s l)epartment (,,the
sherifl,s
ciepartment"), alleging a myriaci of tort claims. The sheriffs
depar:tment no\,r,
disn-riss

index

the clajms alleged against

#4.)

it.

m.or,.es

to

(Court inclex #10, 11.) The plaintiffs object. (Court

T'he court held a hear:ing on the matter on.JuJr,

parties' argttinents, the pleadirrgs, and the appiicable

121a,,

6, zot5. Ilased on the

th sheriffs department,s

motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

I"

FaetuaL and procedural Background,


T'he

cornplaint alleges the foilon-ing facts, nhich, for purposes of this


motiop [o

dismiss on11', the court must asslime to be tme" s-qq-g"&,


Berry

r,,.

watchtorver Bibie &

'frzrct soc., r5z N.r{"


4,o7, 4ra (::oos). Furlong owns propert\,locate<lat 1455 Route
3oe

in Bartiett' (Compl"
'

at7)

FurJong o\^,ns and operates tlvo businesses on this property-

'I'he plairltitfs' cornplaint


is fiftr'-seveli pafles long ancl includes

factlal allcgations ranglng over a seven


l"ealperiod. Intheinterestofefflcie'cryundb..oi,rethisnt<itionpertainsonlytotheclairnsagainstthe
she|ifl's cieparttnent, tltc't'.rtrt pro*irlcs an abbreviatecl factrral
backgrouucl of the facts rele'a't to the
clairns assertcd agai.rst the shciif|s rrepilrtrnent spccificarh,.

Starbrite ancl Lil' l\4an. (Id.) Sjr:ce at least zoog, rhe


de{'endairts have col}ecti'el),
engaged in an ot'erarchiilg scheme o1'coirspiracv
and collr-ision designeci to per.sonallv

harm ljurJong and/or financieillV hartn Star:brite


and I_i], A4an through various acts,
including detlving the plaintifi's'J:uilding permit;
issuing cease and clesist orciers for iand
use improt'elnents leading to a large, court-imposecl
f.iner; denying the plaintiffs access to
a particular Class

vl road; anci arresting l.-r-irlong on a. numbel

of occasions. (ic1.

at 2-8,

6' t4*t5,24,26,4:') The plaintifls have su1'ferecl, seveLe,


ongoing fi'a'ciai aircl personal
detrimeni caused llY these actions" including Lrut not iimited
to: r.nental anguish,

llsizchoiogicai ullset, medical elipenses, Ioss o1'r'etileneirt, sar.ings, a'd.


loss of income
and assets, (iC.

Lrt 47,

S6-SZ.)

x4ost'pei'f itrent here. Chief .Ianet Chanrpjin of


tJro tsartlett poiice Departirent

arrested liu|long on at least four occusior-rs betr'r,een


lleceniber at p:arp.,and huiarch of

eor5 for crjtninal trespass upoD the class


lreen r'r'rollgit'denied access

vl roacl u,hjch the plaintiffs

clairn the1, fio,,.

to. (Id. a1.43.) on Fe]:nra{,'2o, 2ars,dgring

one ol.tirese

occasions' Depul1'stephen Ror'rre o1'the sheriff's


clepaltmer-rt afl,ected a traffic stop of
F'urlong r'r'hile he u'as driving his vehicle on Route
:1o2. (id. at 3o") After Depntrr l{olye

puiled Iiurlong over and asked hirn to step out oi'bis


vehicle, chief champlin arrested
F-urlong fbr climinai trespass, handcrifl"ed him,
and piacecl him in he' cruiser. (Icl. at

3o') chief champlin then transported

l'.urlong

1o

the earroll countv Department

o1.

Corrections j.o ite processecl. (f d. at


30"J
Several r'r'eeks iater, oll or about h4arch
4.,2ors,liuriong contacted the sheriffs

departmeni to t'eport a cnstomer

prouding

a iauJiv

r,r4ro n,as

refusing to pay fbr: a snowmobile rental bt,

credit card and offering no altemative pavment. (compl.


at 33.) After
arriving at Fut'long's btlsiness and discussing the sitrriition
i,r.ith Fr-rrlong aircl the

customers, I)eput\; Ror'r'e alloi'r'ed the custorners

1,o

leave. (Id.) lle then attem'ted to

assist )r-r-rrlong in fixing the credjt card issue.


brit iater"blamed Furiong for the problem,

alleging that he had refused to i'etui:n the


cnstomers' credit card to 1.herl. (Id") Deputl,
itot't'e Verbalj! accused Furlong of this
unlar,r{irl concluct in frort of Furlong,s sta{f
and
other customet:s. (Id. at 34,5r:"J on ft4.arch
24, za1s,Deput"v Ron,e arrestecl Ijullong
in
conuection it'ith this incident for thelt anci
crinrinalthreatening. (rd. at 3s, 45.) Furlong
\A/as

]lrocessed at the sberiff's departtnent in coirnection rvith


tliis arrest. gd. at a5.1
In [4a1' of zat5, the piainti{fs fiied this suit. The
compiaint asserts six clairns

arising out of these incidents ap,ainst the sheliffs


dcpartment specii.icallt,: lalse
imprisonrnent/arrest (count Ii); maiicioLls prosrcr-rtion
(count i\r); negligence (couirt v);
iutentionai inllictiorr of etnotiottal distres.s (count
vI); clelamation (count vli); and ci'il

conspiracl'(count X)" (Conrpl. at


<g*SZ.)

II" Standard of ltevier,t,


When ruling on a t-uotion to clisrniss" the corrrt
nrlrst discern u,hether the

allegatio's stated ir the praintilfs coirplai't "ai'e


i'easo'abr1, stiscepr.ible of *
construction that ivouid per:rnit i.ecover\,,.,, pl

r54

N'lJ' 79r, 793 Qaofl fquotation omittecl). The


court siror-rld ',assume all {acts pled in the
plaintiffs r'r't'it are ti'ttc, aud . . constme ail reasonabie
"

inferences clrar,r,n from those

facts in the plainiiff s favor"" Ic{. (qr-roting


Ben),, r5z N.l{. at

4to). IJut, the court need

not "'assutne the trutir of starteinents . that


are mcrely conclusions o1.]au,.,, Gen.
" "
Insulation co' r'' Eci<man constr., r59 N.H.
6at, 6rt(zoro). The plaintiff rnust suppoft
his legal conclusions and claitns n'ith "preclicate
facts." Id. at 6tz. The court should test
these l'acts agiiinst the applicable lan'aurd
denv tire rnotion to disrniss ,,[i]f the facts
as
alleged rvor-rid constitr-rte a basis fbr iegar
relief." Berry, r5z J.rJ.H. at rc;starr r..

Governor, r48 N'i{. 72-,'73 (eooz). \A/hen the


urotion to disrniss raises cer:tain legal
det-enses

rather than challenges the legai sulliciencv of


the piaintiff's claim, the ,,triai

court mttst looli be-vond the plaintiffs unsubstantiated


allegations and determine based
on the facts, r,r4rether the plaintil,f has sufficientl\,clen_ioi1str:ated
his clailr of reiie1,.,,
, r4z l,l"H. g4g, B5z_S3 (1gggl (gtiotation and

citation omitted).

III_" Alalysis
The sheriffs department :rrgues that ail ciaiirs
against it must be clismissed
becartse

it is entil-ied to imiruuitv on these claims turcier R.sA


5o7-B:z- (zoro) a'd RSA

5o7"8:5 (zoro). (Def. sheriffs Dept.'s Mem. T_ar,r,srpp. Mot" Disrniss


at +_s.)
Alternativei)', the shel'ilfs ciepartment argues that
it is; entitied to
official
'icarior-rs
iinmunitl'regarding the plaintiffs' clainis because Deyl-itv
R.or,r,e r,r,ould l:e protected

b'

official imm'nitv if he rvere a partr.i,o trris arctior. (rcl,


at s -6.)
The piaintil'fs argue, in opposition,

theri-

it is inai:propriate for the court to

drarn,

conclnsions of lat'r'r'egarcliug potenti:rl immunitr-clel'enses


on ;r motio' to dismiss. (pls.,

obj' Def' sheriffs Dept. r4ot. Dismiss ll


3") Thev assert that
outside their siroes acting ltnd.er color of

lar,r,

"r,rdren an

official

. . . r,r,alks

to perlbrm duties, or arrest someo'e, ofr]

cotlspire r'r'ith another to nreet :r certain act ltithout


legal authority to do so that those
irnmunities no longer protect." (Id" 5.) The plaintiff.s
11
prirlari)y maintain that therz are
prepared to ciemonstrate the sheril'l's clepartmenl's
ancr Deputl, R.or,r,e,s riablitr,, but cro

not scluareiv address thc' issues of inrmunitv r:aisecl


except as already noted. (see id.
1-7.)

A.

Statutor..r,

Iilmunitl,

''

First, the
r'.tl'sr'
tne court notes that

it is appr:opriate for the court to consider pote'tiai


iegal

defenses, such as rnunici.pal immunit-',,


olr a motion to dismiss. see
rarnbrLsbakgr
Regional sch' Ilist',
(,irl'h' r5, zor5) (slip op. at
--- I{'H'
L-z) (upholding trial court,s

grant of motio' to dismiss on-,tr'nicipal

irnr'unit'

grounds uncier RSn


5o7-13:5);

Pro'encher' t4z I{'H' at 852-53 (consicleri'g


det'ense of *,itress imrnunit-v o,
motio' to
dismiss)' Acco:'dingll', l'he court proceeds
to analvze ri'hetirer the sl.atutory scheme
provides the sherifl's department
rtith statul,or"l,-irrrnuiritr,l.rom liabilitr,.
RSA chapter 5o7-B is entitled ,,Boclti11,Injurl,Actions
Against Goyerlmenta.I

uirits'" lisA

5o7-I3:5 p'o'icles broacl mur-ricipal

i'mu'ii,1, to a'\, ,,go'ernmental u'it,,

for "an'action to recotrer Ibr bodil'i'juru,


personal injti^,, or propert' clamage
except
as pro'ided b1z 1r1. crrapte' or as
is pro'ided or..'ra\-be pro'iclecl
b\, s11r.. statute.,, see

alsq,

, 165

t!.1{. 694,696(zo13)"

establishes an exception to I{SA


5o7_B:5,s grant of immunit}r.

that "[a] go'erllmental

u'it nta'be

t'

ici. I{SA 5o7_B:z states

held liable lbr da'-rages in an actio,


to reco'er fbr

bodilv injurr', personal injurv or propert.i,


damage caused

attribtitable

RSA 5o7_B:z

b1,

its fault or bt, faurt

it' ar:ising out o1'ov'nersbip, occupatio',


mainteirarce or operation of ail

rnotor vehicies, and all premises.,,


The lrrer'r'IJampsirire sttpreme
court has inter:preted RSA 5o7-B:z as prol.iding
an exception to RSA
5o;z-I3:5 iurmunitl'"snl1. r'vher there is a nexus
betn,een the injury
and a go\/ernmental unit's orvttership,
occupatio', rnairtenance, or operation
of a motor
r:eJricie or'llretnises'" Dichiara,
r65 lrl.H. at 69g. Thus, the questions
before this court
are rt'lrether the broad l-nunicipal
iint.t-tu'itl, o1'RSA ga7-J]:5appiies to
shield the sireriffs
departmetrt 1'rom suit, etnd nftether
the pJaintifl's' claims against the
sheriff,s ciepartment
meet the exception to itnmunit.r. provided
in RSA So7_B:2.

T'his presents a qtiestioir of statutoi'r;


interpretation, r,r4ricir is a question o1.la*,.
see Trefethen r'. Tor'r'n of Den.r,,
164 hr.IJ. 7s4, 7ss(zoi3J (r:itation
omitted)" The courl:
considr:rs the statute as a t'hole ancl
ascribes the plain ancl or"dinan, nrea'ing
to the

u'ords usecl" Id' (citation omittecl).


The courl. "iirterpretfs] legislati'e
rntent lrom the
statute :rs i't'ritten arld h'ill not consider
i,r,hat the legislatur.e might ha'e
said or add
language tilat' the legislatr-rre clid not
see fit to inclucle." Id. (citation
omittecl).
The court first finc1s that the plain language

o1.

RSA,5o7-iJ:5 appries to the

sheri{fs depai'1'niettt to shielcl it from iiabilirr',


ri'less an exception exists. Tire sher.iffs
depart'rent is a go'crnme'tar u'it as clef ineci
ir its,.r cirapter so7-8. RsA 5o7_B:r, I
(zoto) (defining go\/el'rlirentai unit "an1,
as
poiitical sr-ibdi'ision
r,t,ithin the state

iircludingani"coun$''..,orclepartnentsoragenciestrrer.eof..".,,).Next,arioftrre
plaintilfs' asserted inju.ies fall rt'itliin
the categories o1'"boclih, injuryr, personal
injun,, or
propert\/ datttage'" "Personal iiljunr" is
clef inecl u,ithin the statutor\.
scheme as:

jltri' to the feelings or repntation o1'a


natural person, includi'g but
tlot lirnited to, f'aisc' arrest, cletenl.ion or
iinprisonrnent.

Ant'

in

rnalicious
ill'osecution, lib.ei, slander, or the publication or
utterance of other
defatnator'\' ol' disilaraging inatel'ial, i,r,,uuio,,
of
an
indivij.,;l,s
rigirt of
pri'erc.v, t:::::1,-,:t
risirl of p'i"it*."u"."upun.1,, n,rongful ent'
or
1]iementar
e'iction, mental
anguisir, nt o.r., and, except *,hen
"ol
-iirJur\,,

the

public. polici,

discrirninaition

" ' iult)' injul'.to

:,H:il:::':;J;;,iffult
RSA 5o7-B:r'

III'

thcr lari,s ot.

i.*,

against

or

bot}r,

t;;;uiion,

ribei,

I{ampshire,

intangiblc plopert), sustained l:y anir

of iatse e'icti8'."",,*n.i";

The plaintifl.s'claims of false imprisonment,

prosecution,
'ralicious
negligence' intentional infliction o1'emotior-ral
clistress. defamation, and civil conspirac,,
among the clelendants to perpetrate
these \{rrongs, all lall squarell, within
this definition.
oI'ai.'e subsutred r'r'ithin the categor.\,
o{. bodil), injut.), See RSA go7_B:t.IIi,
IV. The
plaintilfs' cl:iirns, therelore, are barred
bt,the pl.i' lang'age of RSA ga7_ts:5,,,excep'
as

pi:o\rided b5' lcliapter ga7-Bl or as


is pror.icleci or ma\/ be proyrdeci by other
statute",,
i{SA 5o7-J3:5.

'rhe courl next finds tliat


the plaintiffs' ciaims do not fall r,r,ithin
the exceptioir io
imnrntrity estalrlished brr iisA
5a7-B:2. RSA. soz-B:z proi'icles a' exception to immunity
for claims "fbr b'dilv injur,rr, pel.sonai inju^,
or.propert'damage causeci b3,
[the
go\rer'll'neit[al rtnit's J feiLrlt or bv fa'lt
attributable to i1,, arising out of
or,r,'ership,

occupatiou' utaitlteuallce or operation of


ail motol vehicles, ancl all premises . . . .,, RSA
5o7-B:2. None of the plaintiffs' ciaiiris relate in arn1, r,r,av
to the slieriffs departrnent,s
ort'nership, rnailiten'nce, ol'opelation
o1, ilotol rrehicles. (see comp
t, at q3_.g7); ct.
Diciriara' r6s N'H' at 698 (pro'iding the
foJlo*,ing example

in'ol'ing

claim of personal

injurl' arisi'g out of oi:et'ation of a motor'ehicle: "in


a proper case, a go\/e'mental
could be liable lo a bi'51ni1cler for negligent

u'it

i'fliction of emotionai distress arising from

tIienegligeniclpei.-atioiro1.ar,ehic1eb}.u,,etnplovec,,)i@,r63
N"FI. 3zo, gz4 Q-Otz) (fincling excei:tion
to

itlntunitl, applied l,here inmate 1,as rnjured

after being directed bv clcpartnteut o1'corrections


employee to hitch trailer to pick-rp
truck).
Moreovct', none of tlie piaintilfs' claims
against the sherifi's department are
aileged

ortt of the sherilfs clepartment's o\,r.nership,


occupation, rnaintenance, or
operatioi't of its premises" (see conrpl.
at 4|-sn. fhe Ne*, Hampshire supreme
court
has detinecl "pr"enrises" in RSA
5o7-B:2 to nreair "physicsr premisers,,or.,,r.ear property
and an\/ structures br-riit on it." Lar-nb,
.- N.Fr " -''-, (slip .p. at 4.). The court has also
clarif ied that "simplv because the alleged
injuil, occurs in connection r,r,ith the enterprise
conducted on the cief'enclant's premises
cloes lot lrean that it arose out of
the
1'o ariscr

defenda't's operation oi'tire


trrhl.sical prernises.,,

Ic1.

ai.5. That is, RSA 5o7_r3:z,s

exceJltiotl

t. imt'linit'does i.tot *ppJ1'sim;:11'

because tJre cicf'e'c1ant's prernises l'as


the

ion o{'t'e allegeci inju4'" see id.; chatnan,


163 N.r{. at g24.(,,f\Arr]reir

]oczrf

acts

'ehicle
as merel1'tire sitr-rs of an injrir1,, the
ca'sar connection betrt,ee'the injuryrand ilre
use of
lhe veiricle is too tenuous. . . ." (qnotation
onritl,ed)).
I-lere' at best, the plaintiffs have aileged
that certain inj'ries occ'rred rn,hile
FtlrJong \4'as on slieriffcieparl-ment propertr,-such
as trre claim of talse i'rprisonment

for l'-urlong's i\4at'ch 24, ?:a1larrest. (see compl.


at <s.) hlone of the piaintifl,s clairns,
ho\'t'ever' establish il llexus betr,r'een the prenrises
airci the aile.ged

i!

'

ll'-

(slip op'

aL 4

-il

i'jrir1,.

see Lamb,

--

(upholcling 1r:iai courl. f incling that


school 1,as entitied to

itnnluiritv tvlteLc stuclellt's injurv ocr:urrc:d


on school prerlises); cf. chatrnan, 163 IoJ.H.
at 324'-:zG (finding requisite nexlis betrt,een
injr:rv zr'cl i,otor
rt4rere inmate *,as
'ehicle
directed to hitch trailer to pick-up truck
anci hitch lailecl, causing tlre trailer 1.o fali
on
tnmate's lcg and alikle)' c.nsequentlt',
l{s,,1 5o7-B:e's exception to statutory

im'ru'it1,

does not applV irl this case. see Dichizri'a,


r65 irr.lJ. at 698. 'fhe piaintiffs ha'e asserted
no other exceptions to i{sA
5o7-ll imnrunit.r'p;'ovicleci in RSA cirapter, so7-lJor other

statutorlr provision' Accordingll', the court


finris that RSA 5o7-13:5 imirunitv airplies in
this case to sliielcl the sheritfs departirent
f'om riabiiitr.

l'he sheriffs cJepartnlent

itrnlunitt'

etlso arglrcrs

that it is entitlecl to rricarious official

l.egai'ding; thc plaintiff-c' cliiinrs becauscr

otficial imnrunit-,' if rre n,ere ii


1;art\,

r.o

l)cput'

Il.or,r,e

rvould be protected

this acrion. (Def " sher:iff,s Dept.,s Mem.

b'

Lar,r,

supp' Moi.' Disnliss at 5-6.) 'I'he court neecl


not address the inelits o{.thrs argunre't.
it has alreadv fbtiilc] that the sirerill's department
is entitleci to statuto^, irn'ru'illr
under RSA 5o;'-B:5. 'l'hc'c,:out't cloes note
iu response to some of.the plaintiffs,

tl

as

staten.lellts jtr lheirplezrdiirgs, (see iris.'Obi. I)e1'. Shcrilfs Dept.'s tr4o1. Dismiss

that Depr-rtt'llotve has not l:er:n added ol seri'eci as a


1;ar1-\, to ihis action

I\/"

1111

4-6),

inclivic1r-ra16,.

Conelusiorr

For the al.breurentioncd reilsoits, the conr't liucls that the platititif1s' claims againsl

the shelifl's departnrent are balled b), tire statntorv rrr_rnicipa] immunitl, establisl-recl br,
RSlt 5o7-B:5 'Ihe shelitl's cleparrtmenl.'s ilotion

1:c

dismiss all clairls against it

GRANTh]J}.

Sio or:derecl.

Ilate: Septenbel

,2015
Cl-rar'les

S.'l"emple,

Presicli

.Jr-rstice

n g,

i.s

Вам также может понравиться