Curtis Leach v. Connecticut Department of Labor

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0384, Curtis Leach v. Connecticut
Department of Labor, the court on March 14, 2019, issued the
following order:

Having considered the brief filed by the plaintiff, Curtis Leach, the
memorandum of law filed by the defendant, the Department of Labor for the
State of Connecticut, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that
oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The plaintiff
appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Ryan, J.) dismissing the two small claims
complaints he filed against the defendant. We affirm.

The plaintiff’s small claims actions sought damages against the
defendant based upon the defendant’s efforts to recover overpaid
unemployment compensation benefits from him. The plaintiff alleged that, in
so doing, the defendant had violated his consumer protection rights under RSA
chapters 358-A and 358-C “on 50 separate occasions.” See RSA 358-C:4, VI
(2009) (providing that any violation of RSA chapter 358-C constitutes an unfair
and deceptive act or practice within the meaning of RSA chapter 358-A).

The trial court granted the defendant’s subsequent motion to dismiss
based upon its determination that the plaintiff is not a “consumer,” the
payment of unemployment compensation benefits does not qualify as either a
“consumer credit transaction” or a “consumer transaction,” and the defendant
is not a “debt collector,” within the meaning of RSA chapter 358-C. See RSA
358-C:1, I (2009) (defining a “consumer” as a person “who seeks or acquires, or
is offered property, services, or credit for personal, family or household
purposes”), II (2009) (defining a “consumer credit transaction” as “a transaction
between a creditor and a consumer in which real or personal property,
services, money or a form of money is acquired on credit and the consumer’s
obligation is payable in 4 or more installments or for which credit a finance
charge is or may be imposed”), III (2009) (defining a “consumer transaction” as
“a transaction between a consumer and a person who sells, leases or provides
property, services, or credit to consumers”), VIII(a) (2009) (defining a “debt
collector” as one who “enforces or attempts to enforce an obligation that is
owed or due, or alleged to be owed or due, by a consumer as a result of a
consumer credit transaction”).

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
that the trial court committed reversible error. See 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 met that burden. See id.

Affirmed.

Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2