Darren Brady v. Family Dollar, Inc. & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0443, Darren Brady v. Family Dollar, Inc.
& a., the court on March 29, 2019, 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, Darren Brady, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(MacLeod, J.) dismissing his complaint against the defendants, Family Dollar,
Inc., Howard Levine, and Janine MacMahan, for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and dismissing the complaint against defendant
Levine on the separate ground of lack of service of process. In dismissing the
complaint for failure to state a claim, the trial court construed it to be asserting
defamation causes of action, and concluded that the well-pleaded factual
allegations did “not articulate with sufficient specificity all of the elements of
defamation under New Hampshire law.” We note that the plaintiff did not
identify in his objection to the motion to dismiss any specific causes of action
other than defamation that he had pleaded. Nor did he move to reconsider on
the basis that the trial court had misconstrued the complaint to be asserting
only defamation causes of action. Accordingly, any such argument is waived.
See N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002).

As the appealing party, 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 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. In light of this order, the defendants’
requests that we dismiss the appeal or strike the plaintiff’s brief are moot.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk