2006-644, MAHER MAHMOUD v. IRVING OIL CORP.

purchase of one of the defendant’s commercial structures. against him because of his ethnicity and/or religion during negotiations for the

with the HRC on November 3, 2003, alleging that the defendant discriminated

(Supp. 2006). On May 19, 2005, the HRC found that there was no probable

The record supports the following facts. The plaintiff filed a complaint

unlawful discrimination by the defendant, Irving Oil Corporation. We affirm. New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights (HRC) on his complaint of Superior Court (Burling, J.) affirming the finding of no probable cause by the GALWAY, J. The plaintiff, Maher Mahmoud, appeals the decision of the

defendant. Catherine M. Costanzo on the brief, and Ms. Costanzo orally), for the Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., of Manchester (Mark T. Broth and

brief, and David S. Osman orally), for the plaintiff. to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: Martin, Lord & Osman, P.A., of Laconia (Margaret M. Sullivan on the

editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes No. 2006-644 Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Grafton Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

any corrective action. requested that the appeal be dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff failed to take violation and its effect upon the defendant’s brief preparation, the defendant

for the defendant and the court. Accordingly, we strike his brief and dismiss compliance with this rule. that the issues were preserved for appeal and he created unnecessary burdens counsel may so move within ten days of the filing of a brief not in The plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 16(3)(b), he failed to demonstrate court to disregard or strike the brief in whole or in part, and opposing

raised those issues before the trial court.”

engage in guesswork as to the issues on appeal.” As a result of the rule what questions Irving needs to address in its Brief. Irving has been forced to ambiguous what questions Mr. Mahmoud intends this Court to consider or Here, the defendant raised the issue in its brief, indicating: “It is . . . court regardless of whether the opposing party objects on those grounds.” Id. moving party to comply with these requirements may be considered by the where he failed to cite where the issue was raised below). “[F]ailure of the __, __, 910 A. p. 2 2d 1224, 1228 (2006) (declining to address petitioner’s argument the issue. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be cause for the

to decide the issues raised on appeal and to demonstrate that the appellant the burden of the appealing party to provide this court with a record sufficient apprise the respondent and the court of the issues presented on appeal. “It is the record, provide evidence of preservation of the issues for appeal and The statement of questions presented, along with specific references to

pertinent part: on appeal were raised and preserved. Supreme Court Rule 16(3) states in raised and where an objection was made, or to the pleading which raised reference to the volume and page of the transcript where the issue was each statement of a question presented, counsel shall make specific circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail. . . . After (b) The questions presented for review, expressed in terms and the superior court, which affirmed the HRC’s decision. This appeal followed. . . . . reconsideration, but again found no probable cause. The plaintiff appealed to contain in the order here indicated: So far as possible, the brief of the moving party on the merits shall

does it contain specific references to any portion of the record where the issues appeal, his brief does not include any statement of questions presented; nor While the plaintiff raises numerous issues for resolution in his notice of

p. 3 354-A: p. 2 21, II(a) (Supp. 2006). The HRC granted the plaintiff’s motion for cause to credit the plaintiff’s allegations and dismissed his complaint. RSA 3

unreasonable by a clear preponderance of the evidence. credible evidence to support them. properly determined that the HRC’s decision was neither unlawful nor questions of fact shall be upheld as long as the record contains

ruling that there were no procedural violations. Thus, the superior court the evidence. The findings of the investigating commissioner upon unavailable its property. Furthermore, the record supports the superior court’s decision is unlawful or unreasonable by a clear preponderance of sites and that the defendant did not refuse to sell, negotiate or otherwise make on appeal, the moving party shall establish that the commission finding that the plaintiff failed to make a bona fide offer for the commercial dismissed, subject to a right of appeal to superior court. To prevail under RSA p. 3 354-A:10, I. The record supports the investigating commissioner’s thorough analysis with respect to each of the elements of the plaintiff’s claim BRODERICK, C.J., and DUGGAN, J., concurred.

credit the allegations in the complaint, the complaint shall be

relied upon the documents submitted by both parties and conducted a The superior court ruled that the investigating commissioner properly upheld the HRC’s decision. RSA p. 3 354-A:21, II(a) provides:

When the investigating commissioner finds no probable cause to

merits of the appeal, we would conclude that the superior court correctly Although we have dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, were we to address the

brief shall constitute a waiver of the appeal and the case shall be dismissed). the appeal. See Sup. Ct. R. 16( p. 3 3)(b): Sup. Ct. R. 16(12) (failure of party to file