United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
McCafferty United States District Judge.
Sanjeev Lath owns a unit in the Oak Brook Condominium
(“Oak Brook”). He has asserted multiple claims
against the Oak Brook Condominium Owners' Association
(“Association”) and eleven individual defendants:
six present or former members of the Association's board
of directors, two present or former Oak Brook employees, two
other unit owners, and the Association's attorney. Before
the court is a motion to intervene as a plaintiff, filed by
another Oak Brook unit owner, Barbara Belware, who is
appearing pro se. An objection to Belware's motion has
been filed or joined by eleven of the twelve defendants. The
twelfth defendant, unit owner Gerald Dufresne, who is also
appearing pro se, has filed a “reply” to
Belware's motion. Belware, in turn, has moved to strike
Dufresne's reply. For the reasons that follow,
Belware's two motions are both denied.
Motion to Intervene
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Federal
Rules”) provide for two types of intervention,
intervention as of right and permissive intervention. Belware
argues that she is entitled to intervene under both theories.
The court does not agree. In this section, the court
considers each form of intervention in turn, but begins by
describing the claims in this case, as a baseline for
evaluating Belware's motion.
order dated March 20, 2017, the court dismissed some of the
claims that Lath asserted in his second amended complaint
(“SAC”), but permitted him to continue pursuing
these nine claims:
Count 1: a claim under the federal Fair Housing Act
(“FHA”), against Warren Mills and the
Association, for creating a hostile housing environment based
upon Lath's sexual orientation, race, and national
Count 2: an FHA claim against the Association, for handicap
based housing discrimination resulting from a constructive
failure to grant Lath an exception to Oak Brook's
“no dogs” policy so that he could have an
emotional support dog.
Count 4: an FHA claim against the Association, for publishing
a notice indicating a preference for handicapped people who
need true service dogs over those who need emotional support
Count 9: an eavesdropping claim under N.H. Rev. Stat.
Ann. § 570-A:11 against Betty Mullen, for
installing cameras in and/or around Lath's residence.
Count 10: a common law invasion of privacy claim against
Perry Vallee, for installing a camera in Lath's unit.
Count 11: a common law false light invasion of privacy claim
against Dufresne, for making statements about Lath in filings
in the Superior Court.
Count 12: a common law defamation claim against Dufresne, for
introducing statements about Lath in an action in the
Count 13: a breach of contract claim against the Association,
for failing to accept mail addressed to Lath.
Count 14: a common law civil conspiracy claim against Mullen,
Cheryl Vallee, Perry Vallee, William Morey, Christos Klardie,
Vickie Grandmaison, Patty Taylor, Scott Sample, and John
Bisson, for conspiring to violate the FHA by retaliating
addition, the court informed plaintiff that if he were able
to show cause why they should not be dismissed, he would be
permitted to continue pursuing these additional claims:
Counts 3(a)-(i): claims that various defendants retaliated
against him, in violation of the FHA, for filing a
discrimination claim against Mills, Grandmaison, and the
Association's board of directors with the Equal
Employment Opportunity ...