United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
E. Buchholz, Esq.
M. Burt, Esq.
Samantha Dowd Elliott, Esq.
Dufresne, pro se
Sanjeev Lath, pro se
Joseph Marshall, Esq.
R. Maxwell, Esq.
Richard C. Nelson, Esq.
Brendan D. O'Brien, Esq.
G. Walker, Esq.
McCafferty United States District Judge.
case now consists of one federal claim against the Manchester
Police Department (“MPD”) and/or the City of
Manchester (“City”), brought through the vehicle
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plus state law claims against all
four defendants. Against Gerard Dufresne, Sanjeev Lath
asserts claims for: (1) unlawful wiretapping and/or
eavesdropping, in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Annotated (“RSA”) § 570-A (Cause 17); and
(2) civil conspiracy (Cause 19). Before the court is
Dufresne's motion to dismiss. Lath objects. For the
reasons that follow, Dufresne's motion to dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part.
The Legal Standard
Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual allegations
in the complaint as true, construe reasonable inferences in
the plaintiff's favor, and “determine whether the
factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint set
forth a plausible claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 772
F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). A claim is
facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678