Jose D. Marquez v. Miraco Inc.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0437, Jose D. Marquez v. Miraco Inc., the
court on February 1, 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 plaintiff, Jose D. Marquez, appeals orders of the
Superior Court (Nicolosi, J.) dismissing his claims against the defendant,
Miraco, Inc., granting the defendant’s motion for default judgment against him
as to its counterclaim, and awarding the defendant approximately $27,000 in
attorney’s fees. We affirm.

We first consider the trial court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.
In reviewing a trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, we consider whether
the allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a
construction that would permit recovery. Cluff-Landry v. Roman Catholic
Bishop of Manchester, 169 N.H. 670, 673 (2017). We assume the plaintiff’s
pleadings to be true and construe all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to him. Id. However, we need not assume the truth of statements in
the plaintiff’s pleadings that are merely conclusions of law. Id. We then
engage in a threshold inquiry that tests the facts in the complaint against the
applicable law, and if the allegations constitute a basis for legal relief, we must
hold that it was improper to grant the motion to dismiss. Id. Based upon our
review of the parties’ written arguments, the relevant law, the record on appeal,
and the trial court’s well-reasoned decision, we find the plaintiff’s appellate
arguments unpersuasive, and uphold the trial court’s dismissal of his claims.
See Sup. Ct. R. 25(8).

The plaintiff has neither fully briefed nor preserved any appellate
arguments related to the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion for
default judgment or the award of attorney’s fees to the defendant. Under these
circumstances, any issue regarding the default judgment and award of
attorney’s fees is waived. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48-49 (2003).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk