8/3/2019 Object to New Hearing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/object-to-new-hearing 1/5

THE STATEOF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL,SS. NORTHERNDISTRICTCOURT

Town of Bartlett.NH

V.

Ed Furlong, II d,rbla il' Man Snowmobile entals

DocketNo. 09-CV-003

OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW HEARING

NOW COMES the Plaintitl, the Town of Bartlett (the "Town"), by and through ts

attorneys.Donahue. ucker& Ciandella.PLLC and respectfully ubmits his Objection o the

Defendant'sMotion to AcceptLate Filing of Requestor a New Hearing." The Town states s

fol iows:

Summarv

1. ThisHonorabieCourtshoulddeny he Defendant dwardFurlong's the

"Defendant")Motion for a New Hearingas he admits n his Motion, and s clear iom the

Court'sOrderof Notice. ha thi s counsel eceived oticeof this hearing. ethe failed o appear.

Any actionhemayhaveagainst is formerattorney hould ot obligate heTown to incur he

time andexpense f attendinga secondhearingon thematter.

2. N4oreover,he Defendant's ald allegaiiorrha ihe has irrefutable ioof'

supportinghis defense oesnot satisfy he requirement hata parly seeking eiief from a default

establish valid defense f the Town's enforcement etition.See, .g.,Wiebusch,New

Hampshire ractice, ivil Practice ndProcedure, 33.16.

3. Finally,even f theCourt schedules newhearing,he Defendant hould e

ordered,asa prerequisite f thehearinggoing forward. o pay theTown's attorney's ees,costs

D O N A H U E , T U C K E R I i C I A N D E L L A , P L L C A T T o R N E Y S A T L A W

oFFjcES N fxETER NEU" BAMPSHIRf ' PORTSMour ts NE W HAMPSHTRE MERfDTH Nfw HAMpsH Ra . aoo-5oo cl506 . w,\ r ' /v , /TCLAWyERS

8/3/2019 Object to New Hearing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/object-to-new-hearing 2/5

8 .

attomey.

9 .

DONAHUE, T UCKER & CIASDEL L A.PL L C

OFF]CES N EX- I IR . N5 W HAMPSHIRE . PORTSMOUTH. NE W HA.MPSH RE . M-REDITH,

andexpensesssociated ith appearing n January18 ,2012 or thepreviously cheduled

hearing.

BackqroundandArzument

4. This Courtscheduled final Hearingon theMerits or January18,2012.

According o theOrderof Notice, heNoticewassenton July 28,2011,almostsix months nor

to thehearing.

5. According o the faceof the Notice of Hearingand nformationcontainedn the

Defendant"secentMotion, heNoticeof Fiearing as sent o AttomeyRandailF. Cooper.who

hadpreviously ntered nAppearance n beharf f theDefendant.

The dayafter he Notice of Hearing ssued,Attorney Cooper iled a withdrawalas

counsel or the Defendantwith the Court.

7 On January 8,2012,undersignedounsel ndwitnesses ppeared t Court

preparedo proceedat the final hearing. The Defendant ailedto appear.

TheDefendant ow allegesha the never eceivedhe Orderof Notice rom his

ln his Motion, he Defendantmakesabaldallegationhathe has ,irrefutable

proofl'that he madeno changesequiringabuilding permit. No affidavit, photograph r any

othermodicumof evidence ccompanieshe Defendant'sMotion.

10. In connection ith theTown's appearancet he scheduled earing f January 8,

2012, heTown ncurred$s73.39 n attorney'sees, osts ndexpenses.

I l. ln order o prevail n theDefendant'sMotion for a New Hearing, emust

demonstrategood cause" or striking the defaultandexcusinghis failure to appear.SeeCircuit

CourtRules DistrictDivision.Rule 1.1.

-A T T O R N f Y S A ' T L A W

NE W NAMDSH| RE . a OO-5 6 6 0 5 0 6 . Vv \ ,DTCL AWYERS.CO

8/3/2019 Object to New Hearing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/object-to-new-hearing 3/5

12. Even f "good cause" s established,he Defendantmustdemonstrate

meritoriousdefenseo justify a strikeof the Defendant'sdefault. SeeWiebusch.Supra.

13. Here,no "goodcause" xists o strike he default, rovide heDefendant ith a

newhearing,andobligate he Town to undergo he expense nd effort to appearat anadditional

final hearing.The Defendantadmits hathis counsel eceived he Orderof Notice scheduling he

hearing or January 8,2012. Evenassuminghe validity of the Defendant's llegationhat

AttorneyCooperdid not forward he Orderof Notice o the Defendant.his Court'sOrderof

Niltice o counsei f recordconstitutes oodandvalid noticeof thehearing.No mistakeor

misfortune xists; heDefendanteceived oticeof thehearing.

14 . Moreover. he Defendant asno t satisfiedhe requirementhathe established

goodandvalid defenseustifying hathis defaultbestricken.His Motion provides o verified

affidavit,photograph, r anyotherevidence e alleges epossessha texcuses is violationof

thezoningordinance. ndeed,n theDefendant's otion he seemso suggesthathis evidence

supports contentionha the did not needa buiidingpermit. Suchan argument asbeenwaived

by theDefendant shedid not appealhe Boardof Selectrnen'secision equiringa building

permit o theZoningBoardof Appealasnecessitatedy RSA 676:5. Having ailed o so appeal,

theDefendanthasnot exhausted is administrativeemedieson this issueand cannotargue n

theCircuitCourl hathe did notneedabuildingpermit. See.e.g.. VIcNamara. Hersh.157

N.H. 72 (2008). Indeed, his Courtdoesnot haveurisdiction o review hat ssue.See,e.g.,

PropertyPortfolioGroup.LLC v. Derr)z, 54N.H. 610,613(2006xfailure o complywith

administrati e review requirem ntspresentsurisdictionalb ar).

15. Accordingly,not only has heDefendantailed o provide hebasis or a

meritoriousdefense f the action,he appearso intend o rely on issueshatmay not be litigatcd

DONAHUE, T UCKER S. C IA$ OEI IA . PL L C

OF F CES IN , fXETER. NE W HAMPSHlR- . POP.TSMOUTH NEW HAI . , 'PSH]R- . MER 'D IT | i .

A T T OR N E Y S A T L A W

NE W HAMPSHiRE . AOO-5 6 6 O5 0 6 . W^ ^ r '/ DTCL AWy a RS C

8/3/2019 Object to New Hearing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/object-to-new-hearing 4/5

at this time,nor in this Court.

16. Finally, he Town ncurred significantamountof attorney'sees, ostsand

expensesndadministrativeime n appearing t he hearing cheduledor January 8.2012. In

addition o counsel, electman oug Garland, dministratorLyrmJones ndRecreation

DepartmentHeadAnnetteLibby all appeared t the hearing. In sum,even gnoringthe

administrativeimeof Town officials, heTown ncurred$873.39n attorney'sees, osts nd

expensesn appeanngor thehearing.

17. Given heTown'sexpensesn appearing t a hearingwhichthe Defenciantailed

to attend, t minimum, he Defendant hould e required o compensatehe Town its attomey's

f'ees, osts ndexpensesor appeanng t saidhearingpnor to beingpermitted new hearing.

Accordingly, o the extent hat he Courl s inclinedto afford the Defendant notherhearing, his

HonorableCourtshouldorder hat he Defendant ompensateheTown its attornev's ees. osts

andexpenses rior to saidhearing.

WHEREFORE, heTown respectfullyequestshat hisHonorableCourt:

A. Deny the relief sought n the Defendant'sMotion for New Hearingand entera

final orderasset orth n theTown's Requestsor Findings f Factand Rulingsof

Lav";or, n the alternative,

B. Order the Defendanto compensatehe Town 5873.39prior to the replacement

hearing,whichwill be scheduled s he Court'sdocketallows;and,

C. Ordersuch urther elief as s iust and equitabie.

D O N A H U E , T U C K f R & C I A T I D E L L A . P L L C - A T T o R N E y s A r L A W

OtrF CFS lN -Xa r f R NEW HAMPSi IR f . POR- ISMOUTH NEW HAMPSHTR- . MEREDITF NE W HAMp SHTR[ . BOO-5 6 6 ,0 5 C6 . W \ / W OTCL A\ /v ry [RS

8/3/2019 Object to New Hearing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/object-to-new-hearing 5/5

Date: anuaryL,( ,2012Christopher . Hilson,Esq.NHBA #17116225 WaterStreetExeter. H 03833(603) 78-0686chi son ird c alvr-ers.ont

CERTIFICATIONOF SERVICE

i herebycertify that a copy of the foregoingObjection o Defendant'sMotion for l.,lewHearinghas his tL( dayof January,2012,beenmailedto EdwardFurlong,Pro Se Defendant.

S:rtsA-BDtBartlctt. own ol\Furlong.Edward & Lil Man-DC\,plcadings09-CV-00003'Objccliono Motion lbr Nciy Hcarins.doc

DoNAHUE. TUcKER s cre5ror r lA . pLLC

OTFICES lN EXfT [R . NEW HAMPSH Ra . PORT-SMOUTH. NEW HAMp SHtRE . MEREDITH

Respectfullysubmitted,

TOWN OF BARTLETTBy its attorneys,

DONAHUE, TUCKER& CIANDELLA, PLLC/'

er, (-f "%

nl j r . '

. EOO-5 6 6 '0 5 0 6 . WVr 'VVDTCL AWYTRS