S H-T v. Oneill

7ermont Superior Court
Filed 09/05/25
Washington Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Case No. 25-CV-01705
65 State Street
Montpelier VT 05602
802-828-2091
www.vermontjudiciary.org

S H-T (A minor child), et al v. Meghan O'Neill, et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion for Alternative Service of Defendants by Sheriff (Motion: 4)
Filer: Richard Hone
Filed Date: August 19, 2025

The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff Hone has filed the present lawsuit on behalf of himself and his minor child. Since

filing the present action with the Washington County Superior Court on April 18, 2025, Mr. Hone
has amended his complaint eight times to add additional Defendants. Each of these Defendants

appears to reside in New Jersey or a state that is not Vermont. Mr. Hone presently seeks permission
to serve some of these Defendants by alternative means under Rule 4. V.R.C.P. 4(d).

Neither Mr. Hone, nor his minor child, is a resident of the State of Vermont either. Mr.
Hone's complaint states that the "defendants are individuals who has [sic] submitted to Vermont for

jurisdiction by causing bad acts to violate our Civil Rights .
2?

At least one Defendant, Mary Rose Gallardo, has filed a motion to dismiss premised on the
lack of jurisdiction. Def Gallardo's Mot. to Dismiss, Dckt. No. 25-CV-1705, at 3-4 (Aug. 4, 2025).

Based on this motion and a review of Plaintiff's various amended complaints, the Court

finds that there is a broader threshold question of jurisdiction in this matter that extends to all

parties. Plaintiffs theory of jurisdiction, as the Court understands, is that he was in Montpelier,
Vermont on certain dates and received phone calls from the Defendants that he contends
constituted parts of his present claim.

The due process clause of the 14111 amendment to the United States Constitution "limits the

power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant." World-
Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980). The exception is that the state may
Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 2
25-CV-01705 S H-T (A minor child), et al v. Meghan O'Neill, et al
exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only as there exist “minimum contacts”
between defendant and the forum State. Id. at 292. Minimum contacts require, among other
elements, facts that if proven would show that “defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum
State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Id. at 297.

Plaintiff’s pleadings do not provide sufficient evidence or allegation of the necessary minimal
contacts. Vitale v. Bellows Falls Union High School, 2023 VT 15, ¶ 31 (pleadings must make out a
“prima facie case” or “they are not entitled to move forward in litigation”). Before the Court
considers Plaintiff’s motion for alternative service, Plaintiff is obligated to make a showing under
Rule 12(e) of the basis for his claim of personal jurisdiction in Vermont for each of the Defendants
that he has named herein and the minimal contacts with the forum state that support jurisdiction
under World-Wide Volkswagen, Corp. Plaintiff shall file this response showing the basis for his claim
of personal jurisdiction in Vermont against each and every Defendant no later than 14 days from the
date of this Order.

Nothing in this order shall affect Plaintiff’s timeline and obligation under Rule 7 for
responding to Defendant Gallardo’s pending Motion to Dismiss, and the Court will address the
questions raised in that motion for Defendant Gallardo through the normal course of that motion
practice.

Until this issue is resolved, Plaintiff is directed not to file any additional amended complaints
or add any additional defendants. The Court will hold his request for alternative service under
advisement until this threshold issue is resolved.

So Ordered.

Electronically signed on 9/4/2025 1:53 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 2
25-CV-01705 S H-T (A minor child), et al v. Meghan O'Neill, et al