State v. Empire Automotive Group, Inc.
163 N.H. 144
N.H.2011Background
- Empire Automotive Group, Inc. is licensed in New Hampshire under RSA 361-A as a motor vehicle dealer.
- Two indictments allege CPA violations for placing inspection stickers on two cars not having passed emissions tests.
- Indictments focus on deceptive representation, not on financing terms under retail installment contracts.
- Defendant moved to dismiss arguing CPA exemption and exclusive jurisdiction by banking department; trial court denied.
- On appeal, court holds the conduct is not exempt from the CPA and is subject to CPA prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RSA 358-A:3,1 exemption applies | Empire asserts exemption as bank-regulated trade. | Empire relies on bank-commissioner jurisdiction over regulated conduct. | No exemption; CPA applies. |
| Whether RSA 383:10-d grants exclusive bank-commissioner jurisdiction | Banking authority precludes DOJ prosecution. | Exclusive jurisdiction should apply to exempt conduct. | Not applicable; conduct not exempt, so DOJ may prosecute. |
| Preservation of vagueness challenge | Statutory scheme is impermissibly vague if DOJ can prosecute without a referral. | Same claim of vagueness. | Issue not preserved; not reviewable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Averill v. Cox, 145 N.H. 328 (N.H. 2000) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning controls)
- Hughes v. DiSalvo, 143 N.H. 576 (N.H. 1999) (CPA not available in private, non-trade contexts)
- Beer v. Bennett, 160 N.H. 166 (N.H. 2010) (private civil judgment against licensed dealer for CPA violation)
- Bell v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 146 N.H. 190 (N.H. 2001) (comprehensive regulation of insurance; consumer protection parallel)
- State v. Duquette, 145 N.H. 374 (N.H. 2000) (issues not raised below are unreviewable on appeal)