Lisa Marie Brady v. P Jeni Mosca, et al.

2023 DNH 143

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: November 20, 2023
• Docket: 23-cv-391-LM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Lisa Marie Brady

v. Civil No. 23-cv-391-LM Opinion No. 2023 DNH 143 P Jeni Mosca, et al.

ORDER

Lisa Brady, a former teacher in the Somersworth School District, brings

federal and state claims against the Somersworth School Board; Jeni Mosca, former

Somersworth School District Superintendent; Pamela MacDonald, former Special

Education Coordinator for the Somersworth School District; and Dana Hilliard,

former Somersworth School Principal (collectively, the “Somersworth Defendants”).

Doc. no. 1 at 2-3; doc. no. 11-1 at 1. She is also suing Jeanne Kincaid, former legal

counsel to the school district; Richard Farrell, a complaint investigator for the New

Hampshire Department of Education; Virginia Barry, former Commissioner of the

New Hampshire Department of Education; and the New Hampshire chapter of the

National Education Association (“NEA-NH”). Doc. no. 1 at 2-4. In addition, Brady is

suing current and former employees of the University of New Hampshire: Daniel

Habib, Mary Schuh, and Michael McSheehan (collectively, the “UNH Defendants”).

Id. at 4.

After the Somersworth Defendants moved to dismiss, Brady filed a motion to

stay her case until the First Circuit Court of Appeals rules on her motion for reconsideration of the judgment against her in Brady v. Howard, No. 22-1060 (see

Brady v. Howard, 21-cv-614-PB (D.N.H. Sept. 11, 2023) (the “Howard case”)), and to

stay any ruling on the Somersworth Defendants’ motion to dismiss until the court

holds an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Doc. no. 19. Neither of Brady’s requests

provides grounds to stay this case.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

District courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings by virtue of their

inherent power to control their own dockets.1 See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681,

706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); City of Bangor v.

Citizens Commc’ns Co., 532 F.3d 70, 99 (1st Cir. 2008). A stay pending resolution of

another suit is warranted where such a stay “would certainly narrow the issues in

the pending cases and assist in the determination of the questions of law involved.”

Landis, 299 U.S. at 253. The party requesting a stay has the burden of

demonstrating its necessity. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. If there is a “fair possibility”

that a stay would damage another party, the moving party must demonstrate the

stay's necessity by establishing “a clear case of hardship or inequity in being

1 Both Brady and NEA-NH cite the standard used in reviewing whether to

grant a stay of judgment pending appeal in the same case. See, e.g., Bos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. of City of Bos., 996 F.3d 37, F.4th 20, 24 (1st Cir. 2022) (laying out four-part test). Id. Because this case is not the same case as that on appeal, the standard for reviewing a request for a stay while a separate case is pending on appeal is applicable here. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). 2 required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; accord Austin v. Unarco Indus.,

Inc., 705 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1983).

DISCUSSION

Brady makes two arguments in favor of a stay. First, she asks the court to

stay this case, pending appeal in the Howard case, because she meant to file both

suits at the same time. She states that once the Howard case is reinstated, she

intends to move to consolidate the cases. Second, Brady seeks a stay of the

Somersworth Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that an evidentiary

hearing is required to resolve “disputes over issues of fact” and “to ensure justice.”

Doc. no. 19 at 2. The court addresses both arguments below.

I. Stay Pending Resolution of Brady’s Case on Appeal

Brady argues that a stay is necessary so that she can move to consolidate the

cases. She asserts that consolidation would permit her to “succinctly prove that all

court records related to [the case on appeal—the Howard case] were unlawfully

rendered . . . .” Doc. no. 19 at 10-11. Although both cases stem from Brady’s years-

long “effort to challenge the termination of her employment,” her claims in the

Howard case concern the judicial conduct of a New Hampshire state judge and New

Hampshire Supreme Court Justices. See Howard, No. 21-cv-614-PB, 2022 WL

88159, at *1-2 (D.N.H. Jan. 7, 2022). Her claims here, however, concern an alleged

conspiracy among the educators, administrators, and related parties in her first

3 employment termination suit. See Brady v. Sch. Bd., Somersworth Sch. Dist., Civ.

No. 16-cv-069-JD, 2016 WL 6537629, at *1 (D.N.H. Nov. 3, 2016). Though they

share a common factual origin, the claims are otherwise unrelated. A stay pending

resolution of the Howard case would not promote efficiency or otherwise narrow the

issues presently before the court here. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 253.

Moreover, there is more than a “fair possibility” that a stay would harm the

many defendants involved in this years-long litigation by dragging out time-

consuming and costly proceedings. In contrast, Brady fails to state “a clear case of

hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. For

these reasons, the court denies Brady’s request to stay this case pending the

outcome of her motion for reconsideration in the Howard case.

II. Stay of Pending Motion to Dismiss

Currently pending before the court is the Somersworth Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Brady’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For purposes

of deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court construes the well-pleaded facts

alleged in the complaint as true and resolves reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s

favor. Webb v. Injured Workers Pharm. LLC, 72 F.4th 365, 371 (1st Cir. 2023). The

court does not resolve factual disputes or hold evidentiary hearings at this stage.

See, e.g., Peck v. Hoff, 660 F.2d 371, 374 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). For these

reasons, the court denies Brady’s request to stay a ruling on the motion to dismiss

pending an evidentiary hearing.

4 CONCLUSION

Brady’s motion for a stay (doc. no. 19) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Landya McCafferty United States District Judge

November 20, 2023

cc: Lisa Marie Brady, pro se Counsel of Record