Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL,

SUPERIOR COURT

SS.

212-2015-CV-00053
Starbrite Leasine. Inc.. et al
V.

Bartlett Police Dept., et al

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS'


MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
NUMBERED 212-2015-CV-0032 AND 212-2015-CV-00053
NOW COME the Defendants. TOWN OF BARLETT AND THE INDIVIDUALS
WHO WERE, EITHER OFFICALS OR EMPLOYE,ES OF THE TOWN OF
BARTLETT, by and through their attorneys, Boynton, Waldron, Doleac, Woodman &
Scott, P.A., and by way of objection to the Motion to Consolidate respectfully state:
I

The Defendants disagree that the consolidation of these matters

will result

in a savings ofjudicial time and expense to the parties. The only thing likely to be
achieved by a consolidation of these two cases is additional confusion consistent with the
pleadings which have been filed by the Plaintiff.

2.
a

The case containins Docket No. 2l2-2015-CV-0032 (hereinafter "0032") is

Petition for the removal of a Selectman. There is no claim for money damages and as

such is an equity action over which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to RSA 42:I-a,I"

3.

RSA 42:1-a,I provides that in order to dismiss

town officer whom it is

alleged has violated his oath of office shall be by Petition to the Superior Court for the
County in which the Town is located.

4.

Clearly, a Petition denotes that it is an equity action which is not subject to

trial by jury. In addition, many of the allegations contained in Docket#0032 allege


conduct which occurred well prior to three years before the filing of the Petition, and may
or may not be admissible in a removal action, but clearly is not admissible in a claim for
money damages and would do nothing other than confuse the trier of fact in Docket No.

212-2015-CV-00053 (hereinafter "00053") which is a request for jury trial for damages
and could prejudice the Defendants.

5.

While the alleeations contained in 00053 are somewhat confusins. it is

clear that that is a claim for money damages to which the Defendants and the Plaintiff are

entitled to a trial by

jury. To introduce

evidence related to the removal of a Selectman in

a claim for money damages is likely to create avery complicated


be required to instruct the

trial. The Court would

jury that some of the evidence in the case would be evidence

that they should consider in making their determination for damages; however, other
evidence relating to the removal of Gene Chandler should be ignored by them as it is

irrelevant to their decisions and is within the provance of the trial judge.

6.

Consolidation is warranted when it will create judicial economy, alleviate

some of the burden to the parties and generally streamline the proceedings.

consolidation of cases with such diverse claims as 0032 and 00053 would not achieve any

of those purposes, but would likely result in confusion for the parties and certainly for the

jury and a very complicated trial.


WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested:

A.

That this Motion to Consolidate be denied; and

B. For such other and further relief as may be deemed just.


Respectfully submitted,
TOWN OF BARLETT, BARTLETT POLICE
DEPARTME,NT, POLICE CHIEF JANET
CHAMPLIN, SELECTMEN GENE
CHANDLER AND DOUGLAS GARLAND,
AND ANNETTE LIBBY
By their attorneys,
Boynton, Waldron, Doleac,
Woodman & Scott. P.A.

O^r"OW

By:
Bar #2287
William G. Sdott,
82 Court Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
(603) 436-40t0

Certification

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was this day mailed, postage prepaid,
to Edward C. Furlong, III, Lil' Man Snowrnobile Rentals, Inc, and Starbrite Leasing, Inc.,
Plaintiffs pro so, and to R. Matthew Cairns, Esquire, Peter J. Malia, Jr., Christopher T.
Hilson, Esquire and Corey Belobrow, Esquire, opposing counsel.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen