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. City of Manchester

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

December 14, 2017

Sanjeev Lath
v.
City of Manchester, NH; Gerard Dufresne; BMS Cat; and Amica Mutual Insurance Company

          Kevin E. Buchholz, Esq.

          Gary M. Burt, Esq.

          Samantha Dowd Elliott, Esq.

          Gerard Dufresne, pro se

          Sanjeev Lath, pro se

          Bruce Joseph Marshall, Esq.

          Sabin R. Maxwell, Esq.

          Richard C. Nelson, Esq.

          Brendan D. O'Brien, Esq.

          James G. Walker, Esq.

          ORDER

          Landya McCafferty United States District Judge.

         This 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.

         I. The Legal Standard

         Under 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 (2009).

         II. ...


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.