S H-T v. Oneill

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 to Dismiss (Motion: 3)
Filer: Ellie Gebarowski-Shafer
Filed Date: August 04, 2025

The motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Richard Hone on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor daughter, S H-T has
filed the present action in Vermont concerning a New Jersey custody case involving Plaintiff, a New
Jersey resident, his daughter, a New Jersey resident, his former spouse, a New Jersey resident, and
several individuals from New Jersey that have been named defendants in the present case. Plaintiff
named Defendant Gallardo in his Fourth Amended Complaint alleging that Defendant Gallardo
conspired with other actors to deprive Plaintiff and his daughter of their civil rights by interfering in
the custody case, writing false statements on a medical note, and engaging with the mafia.

Defendant Gallardo filed the present Motion to Dismiss on August 4, 2025 pursuant to
Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 12(b)(2) and (6).1 Under Rule 7, Plaintiff had 30 days to
file a response to this Motion. V.R.C.P. 7(b)(4). This 30-day period has elapsed, and to date,
Plaintiff has not filed any reply. As a result, Plaintiff has waived his right to do so. See Pharmacists
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Myer, 2010 VT 10, ¶ 18 (noting that a party’s “failure to oppose the motion effectively
waive[s] the claims”).

Based on Defendant’s filing, the Court finds two grounds to grant the Motion to Dismiss.
First, Plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary minimum contacts between Dr. Gallardo and the

1 Based on the controlling threshold issues of personal jurisdiction and lack of authority to prosecute

claims on behalf of another, the Court finds no need to review either Defendant’s Rule 11 arguments or
her arguments concerning the validity of a civil conspiracy claim under Vermont law.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 3
25-CV-01705 S H-T (A minor child), et al v. Meghan O'Neill, et al
State of Vermont for personal jurisdiction. Second, Plaintiff cannot bring the present case on behalf
of his daughter without counsel.

1. Long-arm jurisdiction and minimum contact

As a threshold matter, Defendant Gallardo has challenged whether Vermont has the right to
assert personal jurisdiction over her that is needed to sustain bringing the claims in Vermont. State v.
Atlantic Richfield Co., 2016 VT 22, ¶ 10. This Court has the authority and discretion to decide as an
initial threshold matter whether a party has sufficient contacts with the state to support personal
jurisdiction, which the Court may decide on the basis of affidavits alone. Id. at ¶ 9.

In the present case, neither Plaintiff, nor his daughter, nor Dr. Gallardo are Vermont
residents. Dr. Gallardo is a New Jersey pediatrician who practices solely in New Jersey. She has
never been to Vermont, and she has never communicated with anyone in Vermont or about anyone
in Vermont. All of her communications with Plaintiff occurred in New Jersey. All of her treatment
of Plaintiff’s child occurred in New Jersey. Dr. Gallardo has had no contacts with Vermont. or its
residents, either in general or in relation to this case.

To establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, a party must show that the defendant
has had minimal contacts with the state such that it is foreseeable and fair that the defendant would
be subject to Vermont jurisdiction. Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100, ¶ 26. This jurisdiction can be general
jurisdiction, or it can be specific to the particular claim. Id. at ¶ 27. In the latter case, courts may
only allow claims against non-residents where a defendant has “purposefully directed . . . activities
at the residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged activities that arise out of or
relate to those activities.” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)). In
both cases, the Court must look at the nature and quality of the defendant’s contacts with the forum
state. Dall v. Kaylor, 163 Vt. 274, 275–76 (1995) (describing “meaningful contacts” with the forum
state).

In this case, there are no contacts between Defendant and the forum State of Vermont.
While Plaintiff has alleged that he received phone calls about his daughter’s custody while he was
visiting Vermont, these allegations alone are not sufficient as a foundation for personal jurisdiction.
Fox, 2014 VT 100, at ¶ 11 (citing a Florida case where a party calling a Maryland number for a cell
phone that was physically in Florida was insufficient contact with Florida). Plaintiff was, at the time,
a New Jersey resident, he was only travelling through Vermont, and there is no evidence that the
Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 3
25-CV-01705 S H-T (A minor child), et al v. Meghan O'Neill, et al
calls were made purposely because he was in Vermont. In this case, Dr. Gallardo has further stated
through her affidavit that she did not contact Plaintiff in Vermont, and that she has had no contact
with the State either in this matter or more generally. Based on these facts, the Court finds that
there is insufficient personal jurisdiction to assert a claim over Defendant Gallardo in Vermont, and
she is dismissed as a party to the present matter. V.R.C.P. 12(b)(2).

2. Bringing claims on behalf of another

Separate and apart from the issue of personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff may not in his capacity as
a parent/guardian bring an action in a pro se capacity on behalf of another. Plaintiff would, at a
minimum, have to retain counsel to represent S H-T. Snelgrove v. LeBlanc, 2023 VT 114, ¶ 5. As the
Court in Snelgrove holds, “We conclude that a nonattorney guardian may not represent a ward in
court proceedings without an attorney because it would violate the prohibition against the
unauthorized practice of law and possibly lead to abuse.” Id. The same holds true here where
Plaintiff seeks to act as a self-represented litigant on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor child.
Thus, in addition to the personal jurisdiction limitation, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks the necessary
attorney representation needed to prosecute a claim on behalf of another. For this separate reason,
dismissal of the present action is appropriate.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Gallardo’s Motion to Dismiss is Granted. Plaintiff’s
complaint and claims against Defendant Gallardo are Dismissed as a matter of law.

Electronically signed on 9/9/2025 5:45 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 3
25-CV-01705 S H-T (A minor child), et al v. Meghan O'Neill, et al