In this case, plaintiffs brought wrongful death and related tort claims against multiple defendants, including BV Inc., after Velma Michnovez died when a bathrobe she bought from Blair caught fire; the robe had been manufactured by A-One and tested for flammability compliance by a Bureau Veritas entity before being sold. BV Inc. moved to dismiss the six counts against it under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, holding that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to hold BV Inc. liable either by piercing the corporate veil between it and the entity that performed the testing or under a theory of vicarious liability, as New Hampshire does not recognize the single-enterprise veil-piercing theory and the pleaded facts did not establish the required injustice/fraud element or an agency relationship.
This case involved a medical practice, its ERISA-governed benefit plans, and a plan trustee suing an investment advisory firm and its president for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and related state tort claims. The claims arose after the plans paid departing participants reduced benefits due to market declines, following a prior judgment against the plans and a DOL investigation, with plaintiffs seeking contribution and indemnity for losses tied to the advisors' investment decisions. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ERISA claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact supporting liability for breach of fiduciary duty or contribution, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
In this case, PC Connection, a New Hampshire-based online retailer, sued West Virginia resident Dayton Crabtree for cyberpiracy, trademark infringement, and related claims under the Lanham Act after Crabtree registered and used the domain name pc-connections.com for his small local IT business. The court had previously granted a temporary restraining order but, after briefing and a hearing, declined to exercise personal jurisdiction over Crabtree. The court found that Crabtree lacked sufficient minimum contacts with New Hampshire, had not purposefully availed himself of the forum, and that exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. It therefore transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
The case involved a tenured University of New Hampshire professor who was suspended with pay and temporarily banned from campus after his June 2007 arrest for disorderly conduct and stalking arising from a workplace conflict with a colleague; the criminal charges were later dismissed and he was reinstated several months later. He sued the university and two officials, asserting claims for violation of due process rights and defamation based on the suspension, campus ban, and internal statements about the incident. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both remaining counts, holding that the plaintiff lacked a protected liberty interest in the temporary paid suspension and that there was no evidence that any readers understood the statements as implying he was armed and dangerous.
This case concerns a dispute between franchisor Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLC and former franchisee Brian Moses Realty, Inc., arising from two New Hampshire residential real estate franchise agreements that ran from 1996 to 2006 and 2001 to 2011. The parties asserted claims and counterclaims for breach of contract, trademark infringement and dilution, unfair trade practices, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, centered on issues such as use of marks, office standards, royalty payments, and representations about the Salem franchise's condition. On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court granted and denied portions of each motion. The rulings rest on the plain language of the agreements, including their integration clauses, requirements for conspicuous identification as a Coldwell Banker franchise, restrictions on mark use outside the franchise, and obligations regarding business conduct and record-keeping.
