United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
M. Burt, Esq. Sanjeev Lath, pro se.
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.
McCafferty United States District Judge.
case now consists of nine claims against five defendants,
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.
Summary Judgment Standard
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)).
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)).
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
Am. Compl. ¶ 232. Based upon that allegation, Lath
asserted a claim for invasion of privacy against Vallee,
which has been designated as Count 10.
moves for summary judgment, arguing that he has produced
undisputed evidence that he never installed a camera in
Lath's unit. The court agrees.
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