Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lath v. Oak Brook Condominium Owners' Association

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

August 7, 2017

Sanjeev Lath
v.
Oak Brook Condominium Owners' Association, Perry Vallee, Gerard Dufresne, Betty Mullen, and Warren Mills Opinion No. 2017 DNH 148

          Gary M. Burt, Esq. Sanjeev Lath, pro se.

          Walter L. Maroney, Esq. Sabin R. Maxwell, Esq. Brendan D. O'Brien, Esq. Gregory V. Sullivan, Esq. Daniel E. Will, Esq. Joshua M. Wyatt, Esq. Gerard Dufresne, pro se.

          ORDER

          Landya McCafferty United States District Judge.

         This case now consists of nine claims against five defendants, [1] including a common law invasion of privacy claim against Perry Vallee, based upon allegations that Vallee installed a camera in Sanjeev Lath's unit in the Oak Brook Condominium (“Oak Brook”). Before the court is Vallee's motion for summary judgment. Lath objects. For the reasons that follow, Vallee's motion for summary judgment is granted.

         I. Summary Judgment Standard

         “Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Walker v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 840 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Farmers Ins. Exch. v. RNK, Inc., 632 F.3d 777, 782 (1st Cir. 2011); citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). “A genuine issue is one that can ‘be resolved in favor of either party' and a material fact is one which ‘has the potential of affecting the outcome of the case.'” Walker, 840 F.3d at 61 (quoting Gerald v. Univ. of P.R., 707 F.3d 7, 16 (1st Cir. 2013); citing Pérez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart P.R., Inc., 656 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2011)).

         When a court considers a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence . . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . . and all reasonable inferences must be taken in that party's favor.” Harris v. Scarcelli (In re Oak Knoll Assocs., L.P.), 835 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 2016) (citing Desmond v. Varrasso (In re Varrasso), 37 F.3d 760, 763 (1st Cir. 1994)). “The nonmovant may defeat a summary judgment motion by demonstrating, through submissions of evidentiary quality, that a trialworthy issue persists.” Cruz v. Mattis, 861 F.3d 22, 25 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Iverson v. City of Bos., 452 F.3d 94, 98 (1st Cir. 2006)).

         II. Background

         Both Lath and Vallee own units at Oak Brook. In his Second Amended Complaint, Lath makes the following allegation:

On or around October 4, 2016, Defendant Perry Vallee and Ruben Clavijo came to Lath's unit to service the plumbing. While Lath was helping Ruben, Perry Vallee installed a camera in Lath's bathroom, which Lath later retrieved.

         Second Am. Compl. ¶ 232. Based upon that allegation, Lath asserted a claim for invasion of privacy against Vallee, which has been designated as Count 10.

         III. Discussion

         Vallee moves for summary judgment, arguing that he has produced undisputed evidence that he never installed a camera in Lath's unit. The court agrees.

         In support of his motion for summary judgment, Vallee has produced an affidavit in which he testified that he “never installed any camera or video recording device in or looking into Sanjeev Lath's . . . unit at Oak Brook, ” Def.'s Mem. of Law, Ex. A (doc. no. 154-1) ¶ 2, and that he “never installed any camera or video recording device in or looking into the bathroom of Mr. Lath's condominium Unit at Oak Brook, ” Id. ¶ 3. At that point, it became Lath's burden to “demonstrate[e], through submissions of evidentiary quality, that a trialworthy issue persists, ” Cruz, 861 F.3d at 25. Rather than doing that, he makes a host of immaterial allegations about Vallee and several other defendants who have already been dismissed from ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.