CPA claim in New Hampshire

2010Cf. State v. Moran, 151 N.H. 450, 453-54 (2004) (noting CPA defendant did more than simply fail to perform under contract); Milford Lumber, 147 N.H. at 19 (same).

2007State v. Moran, 151 N.H. 450, 452 (2004).

2009We begin by noting that the defendant threatened the salon with a claim under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RSA chapter 358-A, demanding "$1000 in order to avoid litigation" because "$1000 is a fair amount as it is the minimum that would be awarded for an unfair trade practice alone." Even assuming that the defendant marshaled a good faith argument that the salon was engaging in a prohibited act, he fails to explain exactly how his threatened CPA claim fits within the statutory language conferring private-party standing upon only those " injured by another's use of any method, act or prac

2009We begin by noting that the defendant threatened the salon with a claim under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RSA chapter 358-A, demanding "$1000 in order to avoid litigation" because "$1000 is a fair amount as it is the minimum that would be awarded for an unfair trade practice alone." Even assuming that the defendant marshaled a good faith argument that the salon was engaging in a prohibited act, he fails to explain exactly how his threatened CPA claim fits within the statutory language conferring private-party standing upon only those " injured by another's use of any method, act or prac

2017Milford Lumber Co. , 147 N.H. at 19 -20 , 780 A.2d 1259 (affirming trial court's finding of CPA violation when defendants "made intentionally vague representations regarding their relationship with [a third party] to facilitate the use of [the third party's] account with the plaintiff to procure lumber," and then "used those same misrepresentations as a basis for disclaiming liability").

2017Milford Lumber Co. , 147 N.H. at 19 -20 , 780 A.2d 1259 (affirming trial court's finding of CPA violation when defendants "made intentionally vague representations regarding their relationship with [a third party] to facilitate the use of [the third party's] account with the plaintiff to procure lumber," and then "used those same misrepresentations as a basis for disclaiming liability").

2023See Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 390 (1996) (an ordinary breach of contract claim does not present an occasion for the remedies under the CPA); State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008) (whether the defendant’s conduct was, in fact, unfair or deceptive in violation of the CPA, as opposed to an ordinary breach of contract, was a matter for the factfinder).

2023See Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 390 (1996) (an ordinary breach of contract claim does not present an occasion for the remedies under the CPA); State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008) (whether the defendant’s conduct was, in fact, unfair or deceptive in violation of the CPA, as opposed to an ordinary breach of contract, was a matter for the factfinder).

2023See Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 390 (1996) (an ordinary breach of contract claim does not present an occasion for the remedies under the CPA); State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008) (whether the defendant’s conduct was, in fact, unfair or deceptive in violation of the CPA, as opposed to an ordinary breach of contract, was a matter for the factfinder).

2023See Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 390 (1996) (an ordinary breach of contract claim does not present an occasion for the remedies under the CPA); State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008) (whether the defendant’s conduct was, in fact, unfair or deceptive in violation of the CPA, as opposed to an ordinary breach of contract, was a matter for the factfinder).

2015The defendants contend that Catucci v. Lewis, 140 N.H. 243, 244-45 (1995), in which we held that the discovery rule does not apply to the exemption period established by RSA 358-A:3, IV-a, controls notwithstanding the 1996 amendment to the exemption provision.

2015The defendants contend that Catucci v. Lewis, 140 N.H. 243, 244-45 (1995), in which we held that the discovery rule does not apply to the exemption period established by RSA 358-A:3, IV-a, controls notwithstanding the 1996 amendment to the exemption provision.

2015See Hair Excitement v. L’Oreal U.S.A., 158 N.H. 363, 370 (2009) (holding that “[CPA] claims are not entitled to a trial by jury.”).

2015See Hair Excitement v. L’Oreal U.S.A., 158 N.H. 363, 370 (2009) (holding that “[CPA] claims are not entitled to a trial by jury.”).

2012See id. (a lease-purchase agreement was an isolated transaction outside the CPA notwithstanding the ongoing landlord-tenant relationship between the parties).

2012See id. (a lease-purchase agreement was an isolated transaction outside the CPA notwithstanding the ongoing landlord-tenant relationship between the parties).

2010See Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. Acmat Corp., 700 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1983) (applying Noerr-Pennington to Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act case); Keep Thomson, Etc. v. Citizens for Gallen Com., 457 F. Supp. 957, 961 (D.N.H. 1978) (applying doctrine to CPA claim); Pacific Lumber, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 513 (applying doctrine to claim brought under California Unfair Competition Law); cf. Zeller v. Consolini, 758 A.2d 376, 378, 382 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to petitioning activity directed at local zoning board); Cove Rd.

2010See Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. Acmat Corp., 700 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1983) (applying Noerr-Pennington to Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act case); Keep Thomson, Etc. v. Citizens for Gallen Com., 457 F. Supp. 957, 961 (D.N.H. 1978) (applying doctrine to CPA claim); Pacific Lumber, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 513 (applying doctrine to claim brought under California Unfair Competition Law); cf. Zeller v. Consolini, 758 A.2d 376, 378, 382 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to petitioning activity directed at local zoning board); Cove Rd.

2010See Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. Acmat Corp., 700 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1983) (applying Noerr-Pennington to Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act case); Keep Thomson, Etc. v. Citizens for Gallen Com., 457 F. Supp. 957, 961 (D.N.H. 1978) (applying doctrine to CPA claim); Pacific Lumber, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 513 (applying doctrine to claim brought under California Unfair Competition Law); cf. Zeller v. Consolini, 758 A.2d 376, 378, 382 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to petitioning activity directed at local zoning board); Cove Rd.

2010See Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. Acmat Corp., 700 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1983) (applying Noerr-Pennington to Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act case); Keep Thomson, Etc. v. Citizens for Gallen Com., 457 F. Supp. 957, 961 (D.N.H. 1978) (applying doctrine to CPA claim); Pacific Lumber, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 513 (applying doctrine to claim brought under California Unfair Competition Law); cf. Zeller v. Consolini, 758 A.2d 376, 378, 382 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to petitioning activity directed at local zoning board); Cove Rd.

2002Worldwide Communications Corp., 115 F. Supp. 2d at 213 (filed rate doctrine barred CPA claim alleging that defendant double-billed and also erroneously billed plaintiff for services provided to phantom customers).