Hull v. Borough, et al.

2011 DNH 042

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 22, 2011
• Docket: CV-10-356-B
• Status: Published

Opinion

Hull v . Borough, et a l . CV-10-356-B 3/22/11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert P. Hull

v. Case N o . 10-cv-356-PB Opinion N o . 2011 DNH 042 Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, et a l .

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Robert Hull has sued the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach,

New Jersey, the Mayor, and various other named and unnamed

Borough officials and employees. Defendants have responded with

a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Hull resided in Point Pleasant until 2004, when he moved to

New Hampshire. In 2007 and 2008, Borough officials caused bogus

code enforcement complaints to be brought against Hull in the

local municipal court. Some of the documents associated with

the complaints listed an outdated New Jersey address for Hull

and others listed his address in New Hampshire. At least one

notice was sent to Hull s New Hampshire address. At the time the complaints were filed, at least some of the defendants knew

that Hull had moved to New Hampshire.

Hull did not learn that the complaints had been filed while

they were pending and therefore he did not respond to the

complaints. Although at least some of the defendants knew that

Hull had not received notice of the complaints, they asked the

court to enter default judgments with respect to the complaints

and the court complied with their requests. Further, although

at least some of the defendants knew or should have known that

Hull had surrendered his New Jersey driver's license when he

moved to New Hampshire, they asked the court to suspend Hull's

non-existent New Jersey license and the court complied with

their requests.

New Jersey and New Hampshire both participate in the

National Drivers Register. Participating states notify the

Register when a person's driver's license is suspended and

states routinely check the database of suspended licenses when

someone either applies for a driver's license or seeks to renew

an existing license. The state of New Jersey reported Hull's

license suspension to the Register and New Hampshire refused to

2 renew Hull s license when it checked the Register and learned

that Hull s New Jersey license had been suspended. As a result,

Hull was denied a New Hampshire driver s license from August

2008 until December 2008.

According to Hull s complaint, “it was known, intended, or

reasonably foreseeable” to at least some of the defendants that

New Hampshire officials would refuse to renew his New Hampshire

license after they learned that Hull s New Jersey license had

been suspended.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Relatedness Standard

Defendants are entitled to have the complaint dismissed

because the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

As both parties have acknowledged, relatedness is an

essential requirement for a claim of personal jurisdiction. In

a prior opinion, I explained that

The First Circuit has interpreted relatedness to require a connection of proximate cause between the defendant s contacts and the plaintiff s claim. See Nowak, 94 F.3d at 715. This proximate cause standard, which highlights the importance of foreseeability to the due process inquiry, “enable[s] defendants better

3 to anticipate which conduct might subject them to the state s jurisdiction.” Id. When, as in this case, the plaintiff s claim sounds in tort, the proximate cause standard requires the plaintiff to demonstrate both “cause in fact (i.e., the injury would not have occurred „but for the defendant s forum-state activity) and legal cause (i.e., the defendant s in- state conduct gave birth to the cause of action).”

Dagesse v . Plant Hotel N.V., 113 F. Supp. 2d. 2 1 1 , 216 (D.N.H.

2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The First

Circuit has explained that constitutional claims ordinarily

should be analyzed in the same way as tort claims when

evaluating a personal jurisdiction question. Hamon v . Beard,

524 F.3d 275, 282 (1st Cir. 2008). Accordingly, I apply the law

as I explained it in Dagesse in resolving the present dispute

because it involves claims based on the NH state and federal

constitutions.

B. Application

Hull bases his relatedness argument entirely on two facts:

(1) the fact that he lost his driving privileges for a time in

New Hampshire as a result of defendants actions in New Jersey;

and (2) the fact that at least one “bogus notice” concerning the

New Jersey complaints was sent to Hull in New Hampshire.

Neither fact is sufficient to establish relatedness. First,

4 even if I accept Hull s conclusory assertions that it was

“known, intended, and/or reasonably foreseeable” by two or more

defendants that: (1) the municipal court in New Jersey would

suspend Hull s license for defaulting on the code enforcement

complaints; (2) the State of New Jersey would report the license

suspension to the Register; and (3) New Hampshire would check

the Register and suspend his New Hampshire driver s license, the

fact remains that the defendant s unconstitutional conduct

occurred entirely in New Jersey. This is not the exceedingly

rare case where a relatedness claim can be established solely

through the in-state “effects of out-of-state conduct.” See

Astro-Med, Inc. v . Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1 , 21-22

(1st Cir. 2009) (Howard, J., concurring). Second, the fact that

a notice may have been sent to Hull at his New Hampshire address

has nothing to do with the defendants alleged constitutional

violations. See Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v . Am. Bar

Ass n , 142 F.3d 2 6 , 35 (1st Cir. 1998) (noting that defendant s

in-state contact must give birth to the cause of action). If

the scheme described in the complaint actually occurred, the

notice that Hull refers to could only have undermined

5 defendants' alleged plan to deprive him of his constitutional

rights. Thus, it doesn't qualify as a relevant contact for

purposes of establishing relatedness. See id.

Because Hull has failed to make out a prima facie case of

relatedness, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over his

claim and the complaint must be dismissed.

III. CONCLUSION

Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is granted.

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the case accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

March 22, 2011

Cc: Edward C. Mosca, Esq. Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq. Thomas E. Monahan, Esq.