Red Horse Stables, LLC v. Mary A. McEachern & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2021-0381, Red Horse Stables, LLC v. Mary A.
McEachern & a., the court on January 6, 2023, issued the
following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on
appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct.
R. 20(2). The plaintiffs, Red Horse Stables, LLC (Red Horse) and James Foley,
appeal an order of the Superior Court (Ruoff, J.), dismissing their claims against
the defendants, Mary A. McEachern, Suzanne M. Lundergan, Manette A.
Pacheco, and Kristal Trembly, for failing to comply with the court’s orders, and
for otherwise failing to allege sufficient facts to support the claims and establish
jurisdiction. We affirm.

The record in this case is complicated and incomplete, involving numerous
motions and other pleadings, many of which have not been provided to us on
appeal. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004) (holding
that it is the burden of the appealing party to provide this court with a record
sufficient to decide the issues on appeal). Although we need not set forth the
procedural history of this case in detail, we note the following pertinent facts. On
November 19, 2020, Red Horse filed a civil complaint against the defendants,
alleging several tort claims. At the same time, pursuant to Super. Ct. R. 20,
Foley submitted an affidavit for the purpose of being appointed a non-attorney
representative for Red Horse.1 Over the following months, the parties filed
numerous motions and other pleadings, and by early February 2021, the trial
court had dismissed paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint for failing to state valid
claims for relief. On February 23, 2021, the trial court granted Red Horse’s
motion to amend paragraph 5 of the complaint, and, on February 25, 2021, the
court ordered Red Horse to file, within 30 days, “a new, amended complaint –
with all amendments to paragraph 5.” On April 23, 2021, the trial court granted
a motion to strike Foley’s appearance as a non-attorney representative for Red
Horse.

On June 25, 2021, after the parties engaged in considerable further motion
practice, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. In so ruling, the court
observed that neither plaintiff had complied with its order requiring the filing of a
new amended complaint. As a result, the trial court found that it “cannot discern

1 At the onset of this case, Foley was not yet a plaintiff in the matter.
He was joined on March
5, 2021, when the trial court granted both his motion to intervene and Red Horse’s motion to
join him.
specific factual claims, or time frames,” and “cannot resolve issues raised by the
defendants as they pertain to jurisdictional defenses raised.” The court further
explained that “[t]he lack of specificity prejudices the [c]ourt’s ability to resolve
those issues, and the pleadings do not inform the [c]ourt.” The court also noted
that, despite its order striking Foley’s appearance as a non-attorney
representative, Foley “continue[d] to file pleadings for Red Horse.” Accordingly,
the court dismissed the matter “in its entirety for failure to comply with prior
orders of the [c]ourt, by failing to file a complaint that alleges facts sufficient to
support [the plaintiffs’] claims and establish jurisdiction.”

On appeal, the plaintiffs advance several challenges to the trial court’s
order. First, we consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by
finding that they had failed to comply with the court’s order to file a new
amended complaint, “when in fact that amendment had been file[d] and approved
by the [c]ourt.” We are not persuaded. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertion, Red
Horse’s February 15, 2021 motion to amend its complaint — granted by the
court on February 23, 2021 — could not constitute compliance with the court’s
subsequent order, on February 25, 2021, requiring Red Horse — then the only
plaintiff — to file a new amended complaint. Indeed, in its February 25 order,
the court reaffirmed its dismissal of paragraphs 5 and 6, pending such a filing.
Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s finding that
neither plaintiff complied with its order to file a new amended complaint, and
that the trial court did not err by dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims based, in part,
on this ground. Cf. Arsenault v. Scanlon, 139 N.H. 592, 593 (1995) (affirming
dismissal where plaintiffs had failed to comply with court orders to supplement
their original writ of summons and particularize the specific claims against each
defendant).

Second, we consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by
finding that Foley continued to file motions and other pleadings on behalf of Red
Horse, despite the court’s order striking his appearance as a non-attorney
representative. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that it amply
supports the trial court’s finding. Further, we also conclude that the trial court
did not err by denying those motions filed by Foley in contravention of the court’s
order striking his appearance. See Super. Ct. R. 7.

Third, to the extent that the plaintiffs are arguing that the trial court erred
because some of its rulings may have modified its prior rulings, we disagree.
“There can be no question of the inherent power of the Court to review its own
proceedings to correct error or prevent injustice.” Merrimack Valley Wood Prods.
v. Near, 152 N.H. 192, 203 (2005) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Lastly, the remaining arguments advanced by the plaintiffs are either
inadequately developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003),
unresolvable on the record before us, see Red Oak, 151 N.H. at 250, or otherwise

2
do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).
In reaching our decision, we have considered the arguments advanced by the
plaintiffs in their “Supplemental Pleadings,” and, as such, the defendants’
objection thereto is moot. The defendants’ request in their memorandum of law
for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal is denied without prejudice to
their filing a properly-supported motion for such fees pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 23.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

3