United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
McCafferty United States District Judge.
action, pro se plaintiff Sanjeev Lath has sued 17 defendants
in 27 counts. He asserts claims arising from several
incidents that have taken place during his tenure as a unit
owner in the Oak Brook Condominium (“Oak Brook”).
Before the court are two motions to dismiss, one filed by
Betty Mullen and Jamie Cox,  the other filed or joined by Oak
Brook Condominium Owners' Association
(“Association”), Cheryl Vallee, Perry Vallee,
William Morey, Christos Klardie, Zenaida Rodriguez, Patty
Taylor, Warren Mills, and Dorothy Vachon (hereinafter
“nine defendants”). Lath has objected to the
motion filed by Mullen and Cox, but has not objected to the
motion filed by the nine defendants. For the reasons that
follow, the motion to dismiss filed by Mullen and Cox is
granted, and the motion filed by the nine defendants is
granted in part.
Cause 1 of his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”),
plaintiff asserts his sole federal claim. Through the vehicle
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he claims that the
Manchester Police Department (“MPD”) violated his
right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution by: (1) refusing to take
information from him when he attempted to report three
incidents (i.e., Vachon allegedly drilled holes into his unit
and installed a wiretapping device, his mailbox was defaced
with graffiti, and his car was vandalized); (2) taking 30
minutes to respond to a burglary alarm from his unit; and (3)
characterizing him in various police records as being a
section, the court considers in turn each of the two pending
motions to dismiss Lath's FAC.
Document No. 27 (Mullen & Cox)
paragraph of his FAC in which he identifies the individual
defendants, plaintiff does not mention either Mullen or Cox.
See doc. no. 24 ¶ 18. However, in paragraph 33
of the second amended complaint in Lath v. Oak Brook
Condominium Owners' Ass'n, No. 116-cv-463-LM, Lath
alleges that Mullen is an Oak Brook unit owner and that Cox
is her son. The FAC includes the following factual
allegations concerning Mullen and Cox:
After a flood emanated from Lath's unit on December 13,
2016, “Betty Mullen . . . interrogated Lath's
caretaker and friend, Randall Parker Booth, persuading Booth
to admit Lath was the person who caused the
“flooding.” Mullen asked if Booth was
[Lath's] “boyfriend” and asked Booth about
intimate details concerning Lath's life.” FAC (doc.
no. 24) ¶ 53.
After a fire in Lath's unit on December 15, 2016, Mullen
and Cox “made statements that Lath intentionally caused
the fire and they had heard and seen the incident by a camera
in Lath's unit.” Id. ¶ 43.
“Lath has been exposed to the dangers and harassment
from the Defendants, Betty Ann Mullen, [Cox], Cheryl Vallee,
Perry Vallee, Zenaida Rodriguez, Patricia Napolitano, Dorothy
Martha Vachon, Gerald Paul Dufresne, Christos/Christas Arthur
Klardie, which has exponentially deteriorated his health and
has deprived Plaintiff Lath of his Fourteenth [A]mendment
rights, of due process, to report a crime, when he called the
Manchester Police on September 30, 2016, to file a report for
the actions of the said defendants.” Id.
[Cox] has caused transmission of harmful [radio] frequencies,
primarily to cause physical harm upon Lath, from the attic
space immediately above Lath's unit.” Id.
[Cox's] use of high frequency sound has further caused
Lath to suffer with excruciating headaches. Id.
upon the foregoing allegations, Lath asserts three claims
against Mullen and Cox: (1) a claim against Mullen, under the
common law of New Hampshire, for invasion of privacy, based
upon her conversation with Booth (Cause 16, see FAC ¶
249); (2) a claim against Cox, under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
(“RSA”) § 570-A, for wiretapping, based upon
his transmission of high frequency radio signals (Cause 17,
see Id. ¶¶ 251-54); and (3) a claim
against all defendants other than the MPD, under the common
law of New Hampshire, for civil conspiracy (Cause 19, see
Id. ¶ 277).
and Cox argue that the claims against them should be
dismissed because: (1) the court lacks diversity jurisdiction
over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; (2) the
only claims plaintiff has brought against them arise under
state law; and (3) the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction
over those claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a),
or should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,