Bar News - January 18, 2017
US District Court Decision Listing
BAL Global Finance v.
Case No. 16-cv-345-PB, Opinion No. 2016 DNH 222
BAL Global Finance, LLC sued Robert Gundersen for breach of contract and an account stated based on a guarantee Gundersen executed in connection with a commercial lease. Gundersen moved to dismiss both claims on the ground that they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court denied the motion. BAL had previously sought to collect on a judgment obtained in another state that was later vacated due to lack of personal jurisdiction. But N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 524-A:2 provides that the out-of-state judgment must be treated as if it had been entered in a New Hampshire court. Accordingly, BAL’s claims are saved from the statute of limitations by N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508.10 because they were filed within a year of the date that the underlying judgment was successfully attached.
Donald Rhodes v. Holden
Engineering & Surveying, Inc.;
Holden Engineering & Surveying,
Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan;
and Peter Holden, as Plan
Case No. 16–cv-35-SM, Opinion No. 2016 DNH 218
Plaintiff brought this action against his former employer’s ERISA plan administrator, claiming he was wrongfully denied $60,000 in benefits under an ERISA-governed “top hat” plan. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. The court granted plaintiff’s motion in part, concluding that: (1) the plan administrator acted arbitrarily in denying his application for benefits; (2) he is entitled to the immediate payment of at least $28,000 in benefits; (3) due to ambiguities in the plan, the matter should be remanded to the plan administrator to determine the appropriate payout schedule for the remaining benefits to which plaintiff is entitled; and (4) plaintiff is entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. 22 pages. Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.
Gasparik v. Federal National
Case No. 16-cv-147-AJ, Opinion No. 2016 DNH 215
In an action removed from state court, the plaintiff challenged a foreclosure conducted by the defendant, alleging several counts under state tort law, a count for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a count under the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), a count under the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (“RESPA”), and a count challenging the defendant’s standing to foreclose. In granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court held that the state-tort counts were barred by the economic-loss doctrine, and that the remaining counts failed, for various reasons, to state claims upon which relief could be granted. 20 pages. Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone.