Court Opinion

ID: 9946152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 15:17:53.824451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:28.102543
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
Filed. o1/o6/a2
Essex Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Essex Unit Case No. 24-7-17 Excv
75 Courthouse Drive

Guildhall VT 05905
802-676-3910
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Kuhn et al vs. Short et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Title: Motion to Dismiss (Motion: 15)
Filer; Peter R. Decato
Filed Date: May 25, 2021

The motion is DENIED.

This ruling addresses the issues in the above multi-part motion remaining after the July
23, 2021 Entry Order. Specifically addressed are Defendant Ryan Short’s Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Motion for More Definite Statement, and Motion for Ten Days to
File Answer.

On May 2, 2019, Plaintiffs Linda and Pau! Kuhn (“Plaintiffs”) filed an Amended
Complaint against Ryan Short (“Defendant”) for defamation (Count 1) and civil conspiracy
(Count 2). Plaintiffs’ claims stem from false and defamatory statements about Paul Kuhn that
Defendant allegedly made to his wife, Amy Short, by text communication while she was
working as a teacher at the Canaan Memorial School located in Essex County, Vermont and was
the teacher of Plaintiffs’ child. The text referred to Mr. Kuhn as “mentally unstable” and stated
that he “may be abusing his family members.” Plaintiffs and the Shorts are New Hampshire
residents. Plaintiffs argue that Vermont has specific jurisdiction over Ryan Short because he
made these false and defamatory statements to avail himself of Vermont mandatory reporting
laws to direct third parties’ activities within Vermont affecting his parental rights. Paul Kuhn
further alleges that Ryan Short participated in a conspiracy of defamation that took place in
Vermont with the purpose of impairing Plaintiffs’ parental rights.

Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

In the July 23, 2021 Entry Order, the court invited affidavits to enable a ruling on the
issue of personal jurisdiction. Ryan Short argues that Mr. Kuhn must establish personal
jurisdiction by showing facts, and that statements made in his affidavit ‘upon belief* are
insufficient. Ryan Short argues that Mr. Kuhn’s affidavit submitted to support jurisdiction
should be based on the affiant’s personal knowledge, not what he believes.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al
Pertinent provisions of Mr. Kuhn’s statements are based either on personal knowledge or on
belief:

“Based upon my own knowledge, I am aware that Defendant Amy Short has admitted under oath
that she received a text message from her husband, Ryan Short, while Amy Short was located in
the State of Vermont.” Pl.’s Aff. J 1.

“Upon belief, that text message constitutes a false and defamatory statement about me, Plaintiff
Paul Kuhn, which was received in the State of Vermont for the purpose of availing themselves of
the mandatory reporting law in Vermont in order to prejudice me and wrongfully cause me
harm.” Pl.’s Aff. { 1.

“In addition, upon my own knowledge, information, and belief, Defendant Ryan Short made

false and defamatory statements about me to persons located in the State of Vermont with the
malicious intent to spread those statements to my children’s school to cause him reputational

harm in the State of Vermont.” P1.’s Aff. ¥ 3.

“T believe that the Defendants, including Defendant Ryan Short, intentionally engaged ina
campaign of false and defamatory statements about me, which were intentionally communicated
to officials at the Canaan Memorial School... and that Ryan Short and the other Defendants
intended that their conspiracy benefit from the strict mandatory reporting laws of the State of
Vermont to further their wrongful conspiracy of defamation.” Pl.’s Aff. 7 5.

“T believe that personal jurisdiction extends to Mr. Short’s wrongful conduct alleged in the
Complaint, because . . . Defendant Short engaged in a conspiracy with the other Defendants, and
personally committed slander . . . causing me reputational and financial harm.” Jd. { 6.

“I believe that Ryan Short essentially directed third parties’ activities within the State of
Vermont, and thereby intended to avail himself of the benefits of the laws of the State, and
therefore personal jurisdiction attaches ....” Jd. 7.

Although most of Mr. Kuhn’s allegations are made upon belief, the allegation concerning
the text Mr. Short directed to his wife in Vermont is presented as a fact. The statement
implicated conduct of Mr. Kuhn relative to his child, who was a student of Mr. Short’s wife and
for whom she was consequently a mandatory reporter.

Mr. Short is a resident of New Hampshire, and was at all pertinent times in New
Hampshire. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause constrains a state’s authority to
bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts. Walden v. Fiore, S71 U.S. 277, 283
(2014) (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980)). Before a
nonresident defendant can be brought into a Vermont court, the plaintiff must show that Vermont
long-arm statute reaches the defendant, and that jurisdiction over him may be maintained without
offending the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al
Constitution.! N. Aircraft, Inc. v. Reed, 154 Vt. 36, 40 (1990). In Vermont, a court may exercise
personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the full extent permitted by the federal Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2016 VT 22, J 10, 201
Vt. 342, 349 (internal quotation marks and quotation omitted). In other words, a court may
exercise personal jurisdiction so long as jurisdiction “comports with the due process clause.”
Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc. v. Coronet Priscilla Ice Cream Corp., 921 F. Supp. 1206, 1209
(D. Vt. 1996).]

To satisfy due process, courts conduct a two-step analysis: the minimum contacts test and
the reasonableness inquiry. See N. Aircraft, Inc. v. Reed, 154 Vt. 36, 42 (1990) (“[Once the
court determines that a nonresident defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts
within the forum State, several factors must be considered to ensure that exercising personal
jurisdiction over the defendant is reasonable”) (quotation omitted); see also Ford Motor Co. v.
Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 8. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (“[A] tribunal’s authority depends
on the defendant’s having such contacts with the forum State that the maintenance of the suit is
reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government, and does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (quotation and internal quotation marks omitted).

1) Minimum Contacts
Defamation Claim

In determining whether minimum contacts exist, courts distinguish between “general
(sometimes called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific (sometimes called case-linked)
jurisdiction.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cty., 1378.
Ct. 1773, 1779-80 (2017) (quotation omitted). Vermont does not have general jurisdiction over
Ryan Short, a New Hampshire resident. Paul Kuhn argues, however, that Vermont has specific
jurisdiction over Ryan Short because he availed himself of the benefit of its laws.

Specific jurisdiction exists “when a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a
suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Helicopteros
Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984).

Courts must consider two factors to determine whether the defendant had sufficient
minimum contacts with the forum state. State v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2016 VT 22, { 14 (“Specific
jurisdiction is satisfied when a defendant has ‘fair warning that a particular activity may subject
it to the jurisdiction of a state by virtue of the fact that the defendant ‘purposefully directed’ its
activities at residents of the forum state and that the litigation results from injuries arising out of
or relating to those activities.”) (citation omitted).

1 Vermont long-arm statutes states that “[u]pon the service, and if it appears that the contact with the State by the
party or the activity in the State by the party or the contact or activity imputable to him or her is sufficient to support
a personal judgment against him or her, the same proceedings may be had for a personal judgment against him or

her as if the process or pleading had been served on him or her in the State.” 12 V.S.A. § 913(b).

Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al
First, there must be “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the
privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (quotation
omitted). By establishing such minimum contacts, the defendant “should reasonably anticipate
being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297
(1980). Second, the plaintiff’s claim “must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with
the forum.” Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 8. Ct. 1017, 1025 (2021)
(quotation omitted). “In other words, there must be an affiliation between the forum and the
underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum
State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct.
of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017) (quotation omitted). What is
needed is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co., 1378S. Ct. at 1781.

The minimum contact inquiry “focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the
forum, and the litigation.” Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788 (1984) (quotation omitted); see
also Huey v. Bates, 135 Vt. 160, 164 (1977) (“The arising or growing out of element provides the
requisite nexus between the defendant, the injuring agency, and the cause of action brought in
the forum state.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts evaluate this relationship under the
totality of the circumstances, considering the “quality and nature” of the contacts between the
out-of-state defendant, the forum state, and the cause of action. Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker,
490 F.3d 239, 242 (2d Cir. 2007). A forum State’s exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state
intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the
necessary contacts with the forum. Walden, 571 U.S. at 286.

Under some circumstances, the court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant accused of committing a tortious act outside the forum when the relevant jurisdictional
contacts with the forum are in-forum effects harmful to the plaintiff. Charles Schwab Corp. v.
Bank of Am. Corp., 883 F.3d 68, 87 (2d Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “Exercise of jurisdiction in
such circumstances may be constitutionally permissible if the defendant expressly aimed its
conduct at the forum.” Charles Schwab Corp., 883 F.3d at 87; Calder v Jones, 465 U.S. 783,
788-89 (1984); Jenkins v. Miller, 983 F. Supp. 2d 423, 445 (D. Vt. 2013) (These defendants at
all times knew that [plaintiff] was a resident of Vermont. Their actions were aimed at depriving
her of lawful parental rights, and the brunt of the injury as a result of their actions was felt in
Vermont.) (citing Calder, 465 U.S. at 789).

The Vermont Supreme Court has held that a limited contact with the forum alone does
not defeat jurisdiction. “It is not the quantity of contacts with the forum state that give rise to
personal jurisdiction, but rather, the nature and quality of defendant’s activities.” N. Aircraft,
Inc. v. Reed, 154 Vt. 36, 40 (1990) (noting that contact with plaintiff by telephone and through
mail was sufficient to meet the “minimum contacts” requirement); see Schwartz v. Frankenhoff,
169 Vt. 287, 293 (1999) (“a sufficient relationship with the forum state may arise if a nonresident
defendant ‘intentionally acts outside the forum state to cause tortious harm within the forum
state.’”) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89 (1984)).

Entry Regarding Motion Page 4 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al
Defamatory statements aimed at a specific state may support personal jurisdiction. See
Calder v Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89 (1984); Brown v. Flowers Indus., Inc., 688 F.2d 328, 332,
334 (5th Cir. 1982) (holding that one defamatory phone call initiated by defendant was sufficient
to establish personal jurisdiction); Zehia v. Superior Ct, 45 Cal. App. 5th 543, 557 (4% Cir.
2020) (California has personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant who sent private social
media messages to exclusively California residents and the reputation injury was suffered there.);
see Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 702 (7th Cir. 2010) (Where “the plaintiff's claims are for
intentional torts, the inquiry focuses on whether the conduct underlying the claims was purposely
directed at the forum state.”) (quotation omitted).

In this instance, Ryan Short allegedly texted false and defamatory statements to his wife,
an out-of-state resident working within the forum state as a teacher and mandatory reporter of
Mr. Kuhn’s child. It may reasonably be inferred from this set of facts that the communication
was intended to have an effect in Vermont. Thus the claim meets the minimum contacts test.

Conspiracy Claim

With respect to the count for conspiracy, under Vermont law, merely alleging that a
defendant conspired with others who engaged in tortious activity in Vermont is insufficient to
create minimum contacts. Schwartz v. Frankenhoff, 169 Vt. 287, 295 (1999) (observing that
“Tnjo court will accept conclusory allegations of a conspiracy, without more, as sufficient to
establish personal jurisdiction over an alleged member of the conspiracy.”) (citing Lehigh Valley
Indus., Inc. v. Birenbaum, 527 F.2d 87, 93-94 (2d Cir. 1975).

For a civil action for conspiracy, the parties to the alleged conspiracy must have an
agreement and must do something in furtherance thereof that is itself sufficient to support a legal
claim. Akerley v. N. Country Store, Inc., 620 F.Supp.2d 591, 600 (D. Vt. 2009). To meet the
due process requirements, a substantial connection between the conspiracy and the forum state
must be shown. Vt. Castings, Inc. v. Evans Prod. Co., Grossman’s Div., 510 F. Supp. 940, 944
(D. Vt. 1981). “This connection exists where substantial acts in furtherance of the conspiracy
were performed in the forum state.” Jd. “Furthermore, the nonresident co-conspirator ‘must
know, or have good reason to know, that his conduct will have effects in the (forum) state.’” Jd.
(quoting Turner v. Baxley, 354 F. Supp. 963, 975-77 (D.Vt.1972)).

Under the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction, the defendant is imputed with
constitutionally sufficient contacts with the forum state through actions of his alleged co-
conspirators. Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 883 F.3d 68, 87 (2d Cir. 2018) (“the
appropriate test for alleging a conspiracy theory of jurisdiction: the plaintiff must allege that (1) a
conspiracy existed; (2) the defendant participated in the conspiracy; and (3) a co-conspirator’s
overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy had sufficient contacts with a state to subject that co-
conspirator to jurisdiction in that state.”) (citing Unspam Technologies, Inc. v. Chernuk, 716 F.
3d 322, 329 (4" Cir. 2013); see Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA, 511 F.3d 1060, 1070 (10th Cir. 2007)
(“While a co-conspirator’s presence within the forum might reasonably create the ‘minimum
contacts’ with the forum necessary to exercise jurisdiction over another co-conspirator if the
conspiracy is directed towards the forum, or substantial steps in furtherance of the conspiracy are
taken in the forum, these elements are lacking here.”). The Vermont Supreme Court has not
Entry Regarding Motion Page 5 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al
decided whether to adopt this conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction. Schwartz, 169 Vt. at
2942

However, if this theory were to be applicable, the necessary elements are alleged. First,
Paul Kuhn alleges that each defendant, including Mr. Short, engaged in a conspiracy of
defamation and intended the conspiracy to benefit from the use of Vermont mandatory reporting
laws and its effects. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, one could infer
that an agreement to impair a parent-child relationship existed based on (a) the repetitions of the
alleged defamatory statements initially made by Mr. Short, (b) the interaction between Ms.
Dixon and his daughter, and (c) the investigation performed by the principal of the Canaan
Memorial School. Second, according to Mr. Kuhn, these acts are the principal acts of the
conspiracy which is alleged to have occurred in Vermont. The alleged defamatory statements
are at the heart of Plaintiffs’ claims and it is reasonable to infer that Ryan Short had good reason
to know that his conduct would impact the forum because he allegedly knew that his wife would
react to the claim of abuse as the teacher of Plaintiffs’ daughter.

Thus, under both Schwab and the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction, Paul Kuhn has shown
sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Vermont for purposes of the exercise of special
jurisdiction over the conspiracy claim.

2) Reasonableness

If the plaintiff establishes the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state, the
reasonableness inquiry requires the court to decide “whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction
would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’” Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 476 (1985) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off: of Unemployment Comp. &
Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 320, (1945)). In making this determination, the court must assess five
factors:

(1) the burden on the defendant; (2) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the
dispute; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4)
the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of
controversies; and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering
fundamental substantive social policies.

2 In Schwartz, the court noticed that many courts applied the conspiracy theory test set out by the Delaware
Supreme Court in Istituto Bancario Italiano v. Hunter Engineering Co., 449 A.2d 210, 225 (Del.1982). Under this
test, the elements are “[A] conspirator who is absent from the forum state is subject to the jurisdiction of the court,
assuming he is properly served under state law, if the plaintiff can make a factual showing that: (1) a conspiracy to
defraud existed; (2) the defendant was a member of that conspiracy; (3) a substantial act or substantial effect in
furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in the forum state; (4) the defendant knew or had reason to know of the act in
the forum state or that acts outside the forum state would have an effect in the forum state; and (5) the act in, or
effect on, the forum state was a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
Schwartz, 169 Vt. at 294 (citation omitted). However, Schwartz predated Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am.
Corp., 883 F.3d 68, 87 (2d Cir. 2018) which sets out a different test.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 6 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al
Ryan Short relied on the absence of sufficient minimum contacts to support his motion to
dismiss and he has not advanced any compelling reason why jurisdiction would be unreasonable
in Vermont. Nonetheless, the reasonableness requirement should also be met in order for the
court to exercise special personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.

“While the exercise of jurisdiction is favored where the plaintiff has made a threshold
showing of minimum contacts at the first stage of the inquiry, it may be defeated where the
defendant presents a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would
render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560,
568 (2d Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). “The import of the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry varies
inversely with the strength of the ‘minimum contacts’ showing—a strong (or weak) showing by
the plaintiff on minimum contacts reduces (or increases) the weight given to ‘reasonableness.’”
Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 305 F.3d 120, 129 (2d Cir. 2002).

a. The Burden on the Defendant

Ryan Short has not argued how litigating in Vermont would be burdensome. Ryan Short
is a New Hampshire resident, but given the proximity between his residence and Essex County,
Vermont and the convenience of modern communication and transportation, Mr. Short would
only be slightly burdened by travelling to Vermont to defend this matter. See Metro. Life Ins.
Co., 84 F.3d 560 at 574 (“[T]he conveniences of modern communication and transportation ease
what would have been a serious burden only a few decades ago.””). Moreover, the development
of the use of remote video technology for depositions, mediation, and hearings make the need to
travel much less likely.

b. The Forum State's Interest in Adjudicating the Dispute

The forum state has an interest in exercising jurisdiction over those who commit torts
within its borders. See Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 211 (1st Cir. 1994).
It also has a significant interest in redressing injuries that occur within the state, Keeton v.
Hustler Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 776 (1984) or that are caused to its residents. Burger King
Corp., 471 U.S. at 473; KBA N. Am. Inc. v. Amerigraph, LLC, 2007 WL 4119119, at *3 (D. Vt.
Nov. 16, 2007) (unpublished mem.) (“Vermont has a clear interest in protecting the business
interests of its residents.”).

Vermont has a viable interest in adjudicating an alleged conspiracy that took place within
its borders concerning its mandatory reporting laws. In addition, Vermont may also have an
interest because Ryan Short’s alleged defamatory statements were claimed to cause injury in
Vermont. It is unknown whether Plaintiffs’ reputation and standing were affected in Vermont
but in some areas close to the Vermont-New Hampshire border, people living and working on
both sides of the state line make up a single social and commercial community. Mr. Kuhn also
explains that his wife’ ex-husband learned of the statements and intended to seek to remove H.C.
in a custody dispute, presumably with effects in Vermont.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 7 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al
c. The Plaintiff's Interest in Obtaining Convenient and Effective Relief

Under this factor, some courts accord the plaintiff's choice of forum a degree of
deference.? See Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d at 211 (“While we must accord
plaintiffs choice of forum a degree of deference in respect to the issue of its own convenience,
the plaintiffs actual convenience seems to be at best a makeweight in this situation.”) (internal
citation omitted); Cabot Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. 7mesh Indus., Inc., 2016 WL 9526678, at *5 (D.
Vt. June 8, 2016) (“[T]he plaintiff's choice of forum is the best indicator of [his] own
convenience[.]”) (unpublished mem.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

d. The Interstate Judicial System’s Interest

In assessing this factor, courts generally consider “where witnesses and evidence are
likely to be located.” Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 574. The evidence is likely to be located in
both states, Many witnesses are New Hampshire residents, although the Canaan Memorial
School and its principal, Ms. Lynch, are in Vermont, and mandatory reporting process, including
communications involving it, would likely occur in Vermont. Moreover, some courts have held
that “the judicial system’s interest in efficient litigation is also served by litigating personal
defamation cases in the state where the comments were clearly directed.” Hawbecker v. Hall, 88
F, Supp. 3d 723, 730 (W.D. Tex. 2015).

e. Policy Arguments

The fifth factor requires consideration of the common interests of the several states in
promoting substantive social policies. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 575. This factor does not
favor either party because neither party identified substantive social policies that would be
furthered by permitting the claims to be heard in Vermont.

Having considered and balanced the factors, the court cannot conclude that the exercise
of jurisdiction over Paul Short in Vermont is unreasonable. For the foregoing reasons,
Defendant Short’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is denied as to both the
defamation and conspiracy counts.

Motion for More Definite Statement

Defendant Short asks the court to order a more definite statement. V.R.C.P. Rule 12 (d)
authorizes such relief if a pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be
required to frame a responsive pleading.” The court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint is sufficient to meet the requirements of notice pleading as to both the defamation and
conspiracy counts. The additional information Defendant Short seeks is the kind of specific
information available through the discovery process. Therefore, the Motion for a More Definite
Statement is denied.

3 It should be noted that if Plaintiffs were trying to benefit from a more generous status of limitations, such
questions are not permissible considerations in the context of a jurisdictional inquiry. See Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84
F.3d at 574.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 8 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al
Time to Answer

Based on the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, the time for Defendant Short to file an
answer is 14 days after notice of this decision. V.R.C.P. 12 (a)(3).

Electronically signed pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d) on January 6, 2022 at 3:31 PM.

Mary ifs Teachout

Superiaf Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 9 of 9
24-7-17 Excv Kuhn et al vs. Short et al