Stacey White & a. v. Joseph Foster & a. ( 2018 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2017-0358, Stacey White & a. v. Joseph Foster
& a., the court on March 8, 2018, issued the following order:
Having considered the briefs, memoranda of law, and record submitted
on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See
Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The plaintiffs, Stacey White, individually, as guardian of J.W. (a minor),
and on behalf of the parties’ dog, and Cameron White, appeal the order of the
Superior Court (Tucker, J.), dismissing their complaint for a writ of mandamus
and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs allege that two
veterinary practices and five individual veterinarians associated with the
practices failed to provide proper care for their dog, resulting in the dog’s
death. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, Joseph Foster, Individually,
Gordon J. MacDonald, as New Hampshire Attorney General, Nick Willard,
Individually, and as Manchester Police Chief, James Boffetti, Individually, and
as Chief of New Hampshire’s Consumer Protection Bureau, and Peter Bartlett,
Individually, and as Hooksett Police Chief, wrongfully declined the plaintiffs’
requests to investigate their complaints.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, ruling that a writ of
mandamus was not available, on the ground that the defendants’ decisions
were discretionary, not ministerial, in nature. The court also ruled that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain declaratory relief and that their request for
an injunction, in light of its rulings, was moot.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ decisions not to
investigate their claims were ministerial, not discretionary. They argue that
they are entitled to declaratory relief because the defendants have “mistaken
views of the law,” and that they have standing because “any member of the
public has standing when the AG engages in illegal conduct, adopts unlawful
policies, oversteps his authority, behaves with arbitrariness or caprice, or
refuses to perform his duties.” They also argue that they have standing
because they are crime victims, because they have paid veterinary bills, and
because they have been denied their rights of due process and equal
protection.
As the appealing parties, the plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiffs’ challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
plaintiffs have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.Affirmed.
Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2