Grace Woodham v. Co. John Kum & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0256, Grace Woodham v. Co. John Kum &
a., the court on March 20, 2024, 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, Grace Woodham, appeals an order of the
Circuit Court (Boyle, R., approved by Guptill, J.) dismissing her small claim
complaint against several employees or agents of the New Hampshire
Department of Corrections, and a separate order (Greenhalgh, J.) denying her
motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

The trial court dismissed the case “for all the reasons stated in the
motion to dismiss.” We note that the plaintiff has not provided the motion to
dismiss as part of the record on appeal. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151
N.H. 248, 250 (2004) (stating that appealing party bears burden to provide this
court with those portions of the trial court record that are required to decide
the issues raised). We further note, however, that at a hearing on the motion,
the defendants asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the small
claim complaint under RSA chapter 541-B. See RSA 541-B:9 (2021) (providing
for exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction in the board of claims and superior
court for claims under RSA chapter 541-B based upon the amount of the claim
at issue). On appeal, the plaintiff raises several arguments why her complaint
alleged claims that should have survived the motion to dismiss. She further
argues that she was not provided adequate notice of the hearing on the motion,
that the defendants were equitably estopped by certain statements that counsel
for the State allegedly made in another case, and that the judicial officers who
presided over the matter were biased.

Based upon our review of the plaintiff’s brief, the relevant law, the record
on appeal (including the transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss and
the documents appended to the plaintiff’s brief), and the trial court’s decision,
we find the plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive, and we affirm the trial court’s
decision to dismiss her small claim complaint. To the extent that the plaintiff
argues that the judicial officers who presided over the case were biased, she
has not established that a reasonable person would have questioned the
impartiality of any of the judicial officers who presided over the case. See Sup.
Ct. R. 38, Canon 2.11; State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 268 (2002).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2