This case is a wrongful death products liability action in which the plaintiff, as administrator of his parents' estates, alleges that a plastic step-stool manufactured by ZAG and distributed by Stanley Works was defectively designed and caused the decedent's fatal fall at work. The parties filed numerous motions in limine seeking to exclude various categories of evidence at trial, including the defendants' theory that the stool's leg was already broken before the accident (supported by an OSHA report), the defendants' safety testing, the decedent's health conditions and conduct, and certain internal documents from the manufacturer. The court denied the plaintiff's motions to bar the defense theory and related evidence, reasoning that the evidence is relevant to causation and damages with no basis for exclusion, and also denied one of the defendants' motions while granting the other by assent. The rulings rest on standard principles of relevance and admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence without any finding of prejudice or other impropriety.
This case concerns Green Tree Servicing's effort to equitably reinstate a mistakenly discharged mortgage on the Rickers' New Hampshire property to its original priority position ahead of later-recorded federal tax liens held by the IRS. The action was removed from state court to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1444 and 2410, which permit suits against the United States to quiet title or determine lien priority. Green Tree moved for summary judgment, arguing that the discharge was recorded in error, the IRS did not rely on it, and equitable relief was available under both federal and New Hampshire law. The court denied the motion, holding that federal precedent does not preclude such equitable relief but that Green Tree had not conclusively demonstrated its entitlement under New Hampshire law, which approaches claims to alter established lien priority with caution and requires proof that intervening lienholders did not rely on the discharge.
The case involves Contour Design suing its former manufacturer Chance Mold Steel and a related company for misappropriating trade secrets in the design, firmware, and tooling of ergonomic computer mice like the Roller Mouse series, as well as breaching confidentiality and non-compete provisions in their agreements. The court addressed multiple motions in limine seeking rulings on the admissibility of evidence at trial, including issues related to prior findings from summary judgment and preliminary injunction proceedings. After oral argument, the court granted Contour's motions and denied Chance's, determining that certain evidence concerning the products, agreements, and alleged misappropriation was admissible while excluding other matters as irrelevant or improper. The rulings were grounded in the record from earlier stages of the litigation and applicable standards for evidence in trade secret and contract disputes under New Hampshire law.
This case involves plaintiff Edward Herbst's claims for strict products liability and negligence against L.B.O. Holding, Inc., owner of Attitash Bear Peak Resort, after he suffered a broken ankle falling from an alpine slide used as a summer activity; the defendant denies the allegations and asserts Herbst's own negligence caused the accident, with jurisdiction based on diversity. The court addressed multiple pretrial motions in limine to determine what evidence would be admissible at the jury trial. It ruled that evidence of Herbst's more than ten-year-old mail fraud conviction could be admitted for impeachment under Fed. R. Evid. 609(b) because its probative value on credibility substantially outweighed prejudice given the nature of the crime, the centrality of Herbst's testimony about the incident, and the importance of credibility issues. The court also decided issues regarding exclusion of the face amount of medical bills, limits on expert testimony about the slide's warnings, and admissibility of evidence from prior and subsequent accidents, requiring substantial similarity for the latter.
The case involved a Medicare recipient suing the United States and federal defendants to challenge the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, alleging violations of the Commerce Clause, Takings Clause, Presentment Clause, Presidential Oath Clause, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, with particular focus on the individual health insurance mandate and the Act's enactment process. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, reasoning that the plaintiff's Medicare coverage automatically satisfied the mandate so he suffered no injury from it, while his other alleged injuries were too speculative to confer Article III standing.
The case concerned whether judgment creditors could pierce the corporate veil of SD-Barn Real Estate, LLC, a shell company with no assets, to hold its sole owner, L. John Davidson, personally liable for a default judgment obtained against the LLC for unpaid promissory notes related to a debtor-in-possession loan. Plaintiffs Antaeus Enterprises, Inc. and James H. Rand moved for summary judgment under New Hampshire law, contending that Davidson had diverted funds owed to them in a manner constituting fraud or injustice. The court denied the motion, holding that Davidson had offered a competing account of his conduct that a factfinder could view as neither fraudulent nor unjust, so material facts remained in dispute and the veil-piercing claim could not be resolved as a matter of law.