Joseph Normand Laplante
How Judge Laplante decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On New Hampshire's Consumer Protection Act, he follows a settled line of D.N.H. decisions holding that a misrepresentation occurs 'within this state' only where the plaintiff received it in New Hampshire -- a defendant headquartered or marketing in New Hampshire is not enough if no plaintiff was in the state when they encountered the claim.
“Because none of the plaintiffs received Sig Sauer’s alleged misrepresentations in New Hampshire, the alleged offending conduct did not occur “within this state,” and their CPA claims fail as a matter of law.”
Procedural preferences
In a large consolidated multi-plaintiff product case he is willing to let joinder proceed and defer severance concerns rather than resolve them at the pleading stage, treating the case procedurally like an MDL until trial-management problems actually materialize. He has applied this same reasoning consistently across a whole series of related cases against the same defendant, denying severance/transfer each time.
“For now, the court envisions this case proceeding like a consolidated multi-district litigation, but it will strongly reconsider the possibility of severing the plaintiffs’ claims and transferring them to their home districts for separate trials.”
On motions to compel arbitration, he closely scrutinizes whether an online or hyperlinked contract term actually gave adequate notice before enforcing it, rather than assuming assent from mere website use.
“Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC's effort to compel this case to arbitration hinges on whether its hyperlinked, online "Terms of Use" placed the plaintiff on inquiry notice of the arbitration clause within those terms, thus rendering them enforceable.”
Cautions
On a commercial landlord-tenant summary-judgment motion, he treated nearly every disputed inference (severity of a defect, adequacy of repair efforts, reasonableness of a delay in vacating) as a jury question rather than resolving them on the papers, signaling he holds movants to a high bar when the non-movant offers competing declarations and documentary logs.
“The above-listed disputes preclude summary judgment for ZJBV on its breach of contract claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ZJBV’s motion for summary judgment is accordingly DENIED.”
“the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED-IN-PART, with respect to Counts 1 and 2 in their entirety and Count 6 in part, as outlined supra Section III.D, and DENIED-IN-PART, with respect to the remaining claims.”
“Lieber’s partial motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Sig Sauer’s motion to sever and transfer venue is DENIED”
“its motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint as outlined above.”
“Freeman's oral and written motions for judgment of acquittal are GRANTED-IN-PART as to Count 3 and DENIED-IN-PART as to the remaining counts.”
“Freeman's motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc dated August 14, 2024.”
“For the reasons stated, Paulo Products' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“the court grants in part Sig Sauer's motion to dismiss and dismisses Count 8 of the complaint without prejudice. The remainder of Sig Sauer's motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Sig Sauer's motion to sever and transfer is accordingly denied without prejudice to its ability to re-raise similar arguments at a later procedural stage.”
“the court DENIES the defendant's motion to sever and transfer and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part its motion to dismiss.”
“the defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Spaulding defendants' motion is DENIED as to the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims (counts 3 and 4) and GRANTED as to Ashley's and Kevin's negligence claim (count 9).”
“The Auburn defendants' motion is DENIED as to T.F.'s negligence claim against McSweeney (count 8) and GRANTED as to Ashley's and Kevin's negligence claim (count 10).”
“MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 115 Motion for Reconsideration Re: 113 Order on Terminated Motion; denying 116 Motion for Reconsideration Re: 113 Order on Terminated Motion.”
“denying 116 Motion for Reconsideration Re: 113 Order on Terminated Motion. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante.”
“Rowe's motion for reconsideration and motion to amend are DENIED.”
“The court therefore DENIES Cafe Indigo's motion for a preliminary injunction requiring compliance with the audit provision of the 2017 Agreement.”
“the court GRANTS its motion to stay or dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint, albeit doing so with prejudice as outlined above.”
“Pearl River's motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled window shows a docket weighted toward substantial commercial and intellectual-property litigation (patent, trademark, labor-management relations) alongside habeas petitions, personal-injury, and a criminal case, consistent with a judge who handles the district's more complex civil matters.
Put Judge Laplante's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Laplante actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Laplante's own signed orders and cites them.