Manchester School v. Crisman

2001 DNH 168

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 17, 2001
• Docket: CV-97-632-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Manchester School v. Crisman CV-97-632-M 09/17/01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

City of Manchester School District, Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 97-632-M Opinion No. 2001 DNH 168 Margaret Crisman, as Surrogate Parent for Kimberli M . , and the Town of Pittsfield School District, Defendants

O R D E R

By order dated July 31, 2001, the court granted judgment in

favor of Kimberli M. Before the court are: (1) a Motion to

Certify Questions of Law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court; and

(2) a Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment, filed by the

Manchester School District ("MSD"). Both defendants object. For

the reasons stated below, MSD's motions are denied.

Plaintiff could have brought this suit in the state courts,

but chose the federal forum. "[0]ne who chooses to litigate . .

. in the federal forum . . . must ordinarily accept the federal court's reasonable interpretation of extant state law rather than

seeking extensions via the certification process." Santiago v.

Sherwin Williams Co., 3 F.3d 546, 548 (1st Cir. 1993) (quoting

Croteau v. Olin Corp., 884 F.2d 45, 46 (1st Cir. 1989)); see also

Fischer v. Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co., 857 F.2d 4, 8 (1st

Cir. 1988) (quoting Cantwell v. University of Mass., 551 F.2d

879, 880 (1st Cir. 1977)). Because MSD could have brought this

action in the state courts, but chose not to, and because the

questions it seeks to certify have already been ruled on in this

case, certification at this point is not warranted.

While, under other circumstances, the court might have

certified dispositive state-law questions (and of course MSD had

ample opportunity to request certification), at this point, with

the issue presented having already been resolved, certification

would merely burden the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and, in

effect, substitute that court for the court of appeals as

reviewer of this court's judgment. If an appeal is taken, and if

the court of appeals deems it appropriate to certify questions of

2 state law, then certification will occur. But this court, at

this stage in the litigation, cannot "look favorably, either on

trying to take two bites at the cherry by applying to the state

court after failing to persuade the federal court, or on

duplicating judicial effort." Fischer, 857 F.2d at 8 (quoting

Cantwell, 551 F.2d at 880)).

In summary, if MSD thought that the state-law questions it

seeks to certify were close and debatable, it had a chance to say

so. But now that this court has construed the relevant New

Hampshire statute, based upon the parties' full briefing, and in

the absence of any suggestion by MSD, at the time of briefing,

that state-law questions be certified, MSD cannot now be heard to

argue that these questions require authoritative construction by

the New Hampshire Supreme Court. C f . Santiago, 3 F.3d at 548

(denying request for certification from plaintiff who requested

certification from the court of appeals but who had "explicitly

stated her opposition to certification at the district court

level").

3 For the reasons given, MSD's Motion to Certify Questions of

Law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court (document no. 82) is

denied. And, because MSD's Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment

(document no. 81) seems intended merely to provide a procedural

basis for certifying questions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court

(and is otherwise without merit) that motion is also denied.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

September 17, 2001

cc: Dean B. Eggert, Esq. Lynne J. Zygmont, Esq. Jay C. Boynton, Esq. Jed Z. Callen, Esq.