Cate Street Capital, Inc. v. DG Whitefield, LLC d/b/a Whitefield Power and Light Company & a.
Cate Street Capital, Inc. v. DG Whitefield, LLC d/b/a Whitefield Power and Light Company & a., No. 2016-0355 (N.H. Jan. 17, 2017).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0355, Cate Street Capital, Inc. v. DG Whitefield, LLC d/b/a Whitefield Power and Light Company & a., the court on January 17, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0355, Cate Street Capital, Inc. v. DG
Whitefield, LLC d/b/a Whitefield Power and Light Company & a.,
the court on January 17, 2017, issued the following order:
Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.
The plaintiff, Cate Street Capital, Inc., appeals the order of the Superior
Court (McNamara, J.) entering summary judgment for defendants
DG Whitefield, LLC d/b/a Whitefield Power and Light Company and Indeck
Energy-Alexandria, LLC (the defendants), on all claims, based upon the parties’
2011 global settlement and release agreement.
In 2011, the plaintiff, an investment firm, entered into ten agreements,
including a global settlement and release agreement, with several independent,
wood-fueled power plants, including the defendants, to allow construction to
begin on a wood biomass-fueled power plant that it was financing. In 2013,
the plaintiff filed this action to set the settlement aside, seeking to pursue
damage claims against the defendants, including civil conspiracy, tortious
interference with contract, unfair competition, and abuse of process, for acts
occurring prior to the execution of the agreements. The plaintiff concedes that
if the release is valid and enforceable, its claims are barred, but argues that the
release was procured through economic duress and should be set aside.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found that the
plaintiff, a sophisticated party represented during negotiations by able counsel,
could not prove that the release it signed was the product of economic duress.
Moreover, the court found that even if the release had been the product of
duress, the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, showed that the
plaintiff had effectively ratified the agreement by not initiating this action for
almost two years.
As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2