Maher M. Mahmoud v. John March d/b/a Mountain Mapping

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0048, Maher M. Mahmoud v. John March
d/b/a Mountain Mapping, the court on October 15, 2019, issued
the following order:

Having considered the brief filed by the plaintiff, Maher Mahmoud, the
memorandum of law filed by the defendant, John March d/b/a Mountain
Mapping, and the limited record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral
argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The plaintiff
appeals orders of the Superior Court (Bornstein, J.) dismissing all of his claims
except his breach of contract claim, awarding him $3,800 in damages on that
claim, and denying his requests for punitive and other damages for breach of
contract. We affirm.

The trial court found the following relevant facts. The plaintiff sued the
defendant for breach of contract, among other claims. In April 2018, the
plaintiff moved for summary judgment on all of his claims and requested an
award of damages and that the trial court revoke the defendant’s surveyor
license. In June 2018, after more than two months had passed without an
objection, the trial court granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his
breach of contract claim. The court subsequently held a hearing on damages.
Thereafter, the trial court awarded the plaintiff $3,800 on his breach of
contract claim and granted his request for an attachment, but denied his
requests for punitive and other damages. The trial court also dismissed all of
the plaintiff’s remaining claims for failing to state a claim.

To the extent that the plaintiff contests the trial court’s factual findings
underlying its damages award, we observe that he has not provided a sufficient
record for our review. It is the burden of the appealing party, here the plaintiff,
to provide this court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal.
Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R.
15(3) (“If the moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding
or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”); Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001)
(rules of appellate practice not relaxed for self-represented litigants). The
plaintiff has not provided this court with the transcript from the trial court
hearing on damages. Absent that transcript, we must assume that the
evidence supported the court’s order on damages. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250.
We review that order for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396,
397 (1997), and find none. To the extent that the plaintiff raises additional
issues, we conclude that they are insufficiently developed for our review, see
State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and that they warrant no further
consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2