Bonser v. Town of Nottingham, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: July 16, 1997
• Docket: CV-96-343-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Bonser v. Town of Nottingham, et al. CV-96-343-M 07/16/97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Terry L. Bonser; Mary L. Park; and Cedar Waters Village Partnership, Plaintiffs

v. Civil No. 96-343-M

Town of Nottingham, et al.. Defendants

O R D E R

The parties have had an opportunity to respond to the

court's order of June 20, 1997, expressing its intent to abstain

(Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971)). This court is

satisfied by the Attorney General's response that New Hampshire'

courts will, in the context of the pending motion in Nottingham

v. Bonser, et al., Rockingham County Superior Court Docket No. E

438-81, fully and fairly consider and rule upon plaintiffs'

apparent claims, i.e. that:

• No allegation, nor finding of contempt of court has been made or entered against the plaintiff partnership or Mary L. Parks Bonser or Terry L. Bonser in any state legal proceeding;

• No judgment has been entered in any state proceeding against the plaintiff partnership or Mary L. Parks Bonser or Terry L. Bonser reguiring them to pay judgments previously entered against Robert Bonser or Cedar Waters, Inc.;

• No judgment has been entered in any state proceeding against the plaintiff partnership or Mary L. Parks Bonser or Terry L. Bonser, based upon any other obligation or legal theory, reguiring them to pay money to the defendant town or the state; • No state court of competent jurisdiction has considered or ruled upon the validity of or the right to enforce the town's apparent prejudgment attachment on the plaintiff partnership's real property; and,

• No state court of competent jurisdiction has ruled, on the merits, that the transfer of the subject real property to the plaintiff partnership was fraudulent and therefore void or voidable, so subject to levy to pay the obligations of its prior owners, Robert Bonser and CWI.

Accordingly, this court will abstain and stay consideration

of, but not dismiss, plaintiffs' case in deference to the pending

state proceeding in which plaintiffs' federal constitutional

rights can be fully vindicated. The plaintiffs' claims for

damages, based upon allegations of unconstitutional conspiracies,

acts, policies and practices, and improper intervention in

ongoing legal proceedings, and their claims for declaratory and

injunctive relief, will be considered in this court upon a motion

to bring forward filed following conclusion of the state

proceedings (i.e. plaintiff(s) need not refile or file a new

action here). In the meantime, for administrative purposes only,

the clerk is instructed to statistically close the case. Counsel

shall file a joint, or separate, status report within 30 days of

the conclusion of the state proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

July 16, 1997

2 cc: Terry L. Bonser Mary L. Parks William A. Dewhurst, Esq. William G. Scott, Esq. Christopher P. Reid, Esq. Douqlas N. Steere, Esq.