Halifax-Am. Energy Co. v. Provider Power, LLC, 2016–0241

Citation170 N.H. 569,180 A.3d 268
Decision Date09 February 2018
Docket NumberNo. 2016–0241,2016–0241
Parties HALIFAX–AMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC & a. v. PROVIDER POWER, LLC & a.
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

170 N.H. 569
180 A.3d 268

HALIFAX–AMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC & a.
v.
PROVIDER POWER, LLC & a.

No. 2016–0241

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: June 1, 2017
Opinion Issued: February 9, 2018


Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP, of Concord (Christopher H.M. Carter and Daniel M. Deschenes on the brief, and Mr. Carter orally), for the plaintiffs.

Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., of Manchester (Andru H. Volinsky and Talesha L. Saint–Marc on the brief, and Mr. Volinsky orally), for the defendants.

BASSETT, J.

170 N.H. 573

The plaintiffs are four companies with common owners and operators: Halifax–American Energy Company, LLC; PNE Energy Supply, LLC (PNE); Resident Power Natural Gas & Electric Solutions, LLC (Resident Power); and Freedom Logistics, LLC d/b/a Freedom Energy Logistics, LLC. Collectively, they are referred to as the "Freedom Companies." The defendants are three companies and their owners: Provider Power, LLC; Electricity N.H., LLC d/b/a E.N.H. Power; Electricity Maine, LLC; Emile Clavet; and Kevin Dean. Collectively, they are referred to as the "Provider Power Companies."

The Freedom Companies and the Provider Power Companies are engaged in the same business—arranging for the supply of electricity and natural gas to commercial and residential customers in New Hampshire and other New England states. The parties' current dispute concerns a Freedom Company employee whom the defendants hired, without the plaintiffs' knowledge, allegedly to misappropriate the plaintiffs' confidential and proprietary information. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants used the information obtained from the employee to harm the plaintiffs' business by improperly interfering with their relationships with their customers and the employee.

After a seven-day jury trial in Superior Court (Anderson, J.), the jury returned verdicts in the plaintiffs' favor on many of their claims, including those for tortious interference with customer contracts, tortious

180 A.3d 275

interference with economic relations with customers, tortious interference with the employee's contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The jury awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs on each of these claims, except the misappropriation of trade secrets claim, and included in the damages award $93,000 for the attorney's fees incurred by the plaintiffs in

170 N.H. 574

prior litigation against the employee for his wrongful conduct. The jury's total damages award, including the attorney's fees, was $556,208. Subsequently, the trial court awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs under the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NHUTSA), see RSA ch. 350–B (2009).

On appeal, the defendants challenge: (1) the jury's verdicts on the plaintiffs' claims for tortious interference with customer contracts and the employee's contract; (2) the jury's award of damages for tortious interference with customer contracts and tortious interference with economic relations, and its inclusion in that award of the attorney's fees incurred in the plaintiffs' prior litigation against the employee; and (3) the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the plaintiffs under the NHUTSA. We affirm.

Before addressing the defendants' numerous appellate arguments, we highlight the following principles. First, we decline to review any argument that the defendants did not raise before the trial court. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48, 816 A.2d 1014 (2003). "The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review." Id. (quotation omitted). "This rule, which is based on common sense and judicial economy, recognizes that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court." Id. (quotation omitted). As the appealing parties, it is the defendants' burden to provide this court with a record demonstrating that they raised their appeal arguments before the trial court. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250, 855 A.2d 564 (2004). Moreover, although the plain error rule allows us to consider errors not brought to the attention of the trial court, see Sup. Ct. R. 16–A, in this case, we exercise our discretion to consider plain error only when the defendants specifically argue under that rule.

Second, we confine our review to only those issues that the defendants have fully briefed. See Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49, 816 A.2d 1014. "[I]n the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant judicial review." Id. (quotation omitted).

Third, we will not review any issue that the defendants address in their brief, but did not raise in their notice of appeal. See id. An argument that is not raised in a party's notice of appeal is not preserved for appellate review. Id. For example, although the defendants purport to challenge the jury's verdict on the plaintiffs' misappropriation of trade secrets claim, the argument is not preserved for our review because the defendants did not include that issue in their notice of appeal.

170 N.H. 575

Similarly, we will not address any issue that the defendants raised in their notice of appeal, but did not brief. The defendants raise 27 questions in their notice of appeal, but have briefed far fewer. Any issue that the defendants raised in their notice of appeal, but did not brief, is deemed waived. See In re Estate of King, 149 N.H. 226, 230, 817 A.2d 297 (2003).

With these principles in mind, we address only a fraction of the defendants'

180 A.3d 276

arguments. We do not address other arguments either because they were not preserved, were not sufficiently developed for appellate review, were not raised in the defendants' notice of appeal, or were raised in the notice of appeal but not briefed.

I. The Defendants' Challenges to the Jury Verdicts

A. Tortious Interference with Customer Contracts

1. PNE

After trial, the defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) as to the plaintiffs' tortious interference with certain of PNE's customer contracts on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that those contracts remained valid after February 2013. According to the defendants, in February 2013, PNE "failed financially because it was unable to maintain its required financial sureties with ISO [New England]," which the defendants assert, manages the "wholesale power transmission market, sometimes referred to as ‘the grid.’ " The defendants contend that, as a result, ISO New England "suspended PNE's participation in the power market and directed the host utility," Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH), "to assume responsibility" for the electricity used by PNE's customers by February 20, 2013. The defendants state that, on February 20, "all of PNE's customers were transferred to PSNH for their electricity needs, and PNE stopped buying electricity and re-selling the electricity to its customers." The defendants concede that "PNE was released from its suspension[ ] ... in late March 2013," but contend that PNE "was not able to immediately recover financially and was not back up and running until June." The defendants argued that they were entitled to JNOV with regard to PNE's contracts with the customers that transferred to PSNH because the plaintiffs failed to prove that PNE maintained contracts with those customers after it was suspended.

The trial court denied the defendants' motion, finding that "there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the [challenged] contracts continued even after the customers were transferred to PSNH." For instance, the trial court noted, the employee "testified that, on behalf of [the] [p]laintiffs, he would maintain the relationships with customers even after

170 N.H. 576

they were transferred to a utility during periods of market volatility." The trial court stated that the employee also testified that, as part of the service that the plaintiffs provided to customers, the employee "would keep the customers abreast of market conditions and forecasts, so that when rates went down customers could return to [the] [p]laintiffs for their service." According to the employee, "this service was part of the contractual relationship." The trial court also determined that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that the plaintiffs and their customers "contemplated this sort of short-term transfer." The defendants argue that the trial court erred in so ruling.

A motion for JNOV relates to the sufficiency of the evidence and presents a question of law. Murray v. McNamara, 167 N.H. 474, 478, 113 A.3d 1159 (2015). A party is entitled to JNOV only when the sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand. Id. at 478–79,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Mack
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • December 22, 2020
    ...arguments regarding the original meaning of Part I, Article 5 and the applicability of Smith. See Halifax-American Energy Co. v. Provider Power, LLC, 170 N.H. 569, 574, 180 A.3d 268 (2018) (observing that we generally "decline to review any argument that the defendants did not raise before ......
  • In re Ndyaija
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 11, 2020
    ...that he pay child support directly to DCSS, he fails to develop this argument for our review. See Halifax-American Energy Co. v. Provider Power, LLC, 170 N.H. 569, 574, 180 A.3d 268 (2018) ("In the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the......
  • State v. Woodbury, 2018-0118
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • July 11, 2019
    ...to the State, Duguay, 142 N.H. at 225, 698 A.2d 5, which involves resolving issues of credibility in the State's favor, see Ruiz, 170 N.H. at 569, 179 A.3d 333. Given this standard, we hold that, notwithstanding the testimony relied on by the defendant, there was sufficient evidence at tria......
  • 101 Ocean Blvd., LLC v. Foy Ins. Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 19, 2021
    ...in clear and intelligible language, the proper standards of law by which it is to resolve them. Halifax-American Energy Co. v. Provider Power, LLC, 170 N.H. 569, 577, 180 A.3d 268 (2018). The scope and wording of jury instructions are within the sound discretion of the trial judge and are e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT