Prolerized New England Company v. City of Manchester
103 A.3d 217
N.H.2014Background
- Prolerized New England operates two scrap-metal recycling centers in Manchester; the City has one other licensed yard.
- Manchester amended its scrap-dealer ordinance in 2012 to require electronic transaction records uploaded to a City-designated private vendor (LeadsOnline) within 24 hours, including digital photos of sellers and items, vehicle descriptions, and a $0.50 per-transaction fee.
- Prolerized sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the ordinance is preempted by RSA chapter 322 and that the $0.50 fee is an unlawful business tax and violates constitutional protections.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for Prolerized, finding state law preempted the City ordinance; City appealed.
- Supreme Court reviewed whether RSA chapter 322 (which delegates licensing and record-keeping authority to local boards) preempted Manchester’s record-keeping, third-party data-storage, and per-transaction fee requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RSA ch. 322 preempts Manchester’s expanded recordkeeping and mandatory electronic transmission to a third-party designee | Ordinance imposes stricter recordkeeping and requires transmission to a private vendor, conflicting with state law that only requires dealers to "keep records" | RSA 322 vests local licensing authorities with discretion to set record requirements and adopt rules; statute allows local regulation including methods and storage | Not preempted — statute grants local boards authority to require records sufficient to licensing authority and to adopt rules, so City may require electronic records and use a designee |
| Whether RSA ch. 322 occupies the field, barring local regulation of scrap/junk dealers | Chapter 322 is a statewide comprehensive scheme preempting municipal regulation | Chapter 322 expressly delegates licensing and record-control powers to local boards, showing intent to leave local regulation | Not occupied — the statute delegates authority to municipalities, so it does not preempt the field |
| Whether requiring upload to a private designee conflicts with RSA 322:7 inspection provisions | Transmission to a third party conflicts because RSA 322:7 limits inspections to "officers having jurisdiction" | RSA 322:7 governs physical inspections of premises; it does not prohibit designated methods of electronic record storage or transmission | Not a conflict — the statute doesn’t restrict how records are stored/transmitted; third-party storage does not conflict with inspection provisions |
| Whether the $0.50 per-transaction charge is preempted as an unlawful license fee under RSA 322:11 | The per-transaction fee effectively makes license costs vary by volume, violating RSA 322:11’s uniform-license-fee rule | The $0.50 is a transaction fee distinct from the statutory license fee (which City charges separately based on square footage); RSA 322:11 applies only to license fees | Not preempted — the $0.50 is not a license fee under RSA 322:11, so it does not conflict with the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- EnergyNorth Natural Gas v. City of Concord, 164 N.H. 14 (N.H. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment and statutory interpretation)
- N. Country Envtl. Servs. v. Town of Bethlehem, 150 N.H. 606 (N.H. 2004) (test for express and implied preemption and field occupation)
- JTR Colebrook v. Town of Colebrook, 149 N.H. 767 (N.H. 2003) (preemption of municipal smoking ordinance by comprehensive state statute)
- Belmont v. Parent, 90 N.H. 249 (N.H. 1939) (statutory design to localize junk-business regulation)