Swift River . . . Co. v. Zurich Ins.
This text of Swift River . . . Co. v. Zurich Ins. (Swift River . . . Co. v. Zurich Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Swift River . . . Co. v. Zurich Ins. CV-95-594-SD 07/10/96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Swift River Hafslund Company, et al
v. Civil No. 95-594-SD
Zurich Insurance Company; Philadelphia Gear Corporation
O R D E R
Currently before the court* is defendant Philadelphia Gear
Corporation's (PGC) motion, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R.
Civ. P., to dismiss Counts VII and IX of the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted (document 20). Count VII of the complaint alleges
negligence; Count IX alleges a violation of the New Hampshire
Consumer Protection Act, New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated
358-A, et seg. (1995). Plaintiffs oppose PGC's motion to dismiss
with respect to Count IX only.
PGC attached copies of plaintiffs' answers to
*The court additionally has before it Zurich Insurance Company's (ZIC) motion to dismiss certain counts from plaintiffs' amended complaint (document 6) and ZIC's motion to dismiss certain counts from plaintiffs' second amended complaint (document 19). Insofar as plaintiffs' amended complaint has been superseded by their second amended complaint, ZIC's June 27, 1995, motion to dismiss (document 6) is herewith denied as moot. interrogatories to its reply memorandum in support of its motion
to dismiss Count IX and requests that the court either dismiss
Count IX for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or "enter summary judgment in
favor of PGC on Count IX." See PGC's Reply Memorandum at 10. As
matters outside the pleadings have been presented to the court
(and as PGC has itself recharacterized its motion as one for
summary judgment), the court herewith converts PGC's motion to
dismiss (document 20) into a motion for partial summary judgment.
See Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiffs may submit any
additional materials relating to their objection to PGC's motion
for partial summary judgment by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 29,
1996.
SO ORDERED.
Shane Devine, Senior Judge United States District Court
July 10, 1996
cc: John S. Whitman, Esq. Jonathan M. Flagg, Esq. William R. Black, Esq. Dennis D. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Michael Lenehan, Esq. Kevan F. Hirsch, Esq. Philip A. Brouillard, Esq.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Swift River . . . Co. v. Zurich Ins., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swift-river-co-v-zurich-ins-nhd-1996.