January 14, 2026

Trials back on track in YDC court cases against the state

To our clients—

We’re happy to report more progress this week on YDC court cases.

Trials scheduled in cases against the State of New Hampshire

After a temporary pause on court cases in Rockingham County, we officially have trial dates on the books for 2026! The superior court scheduled trials for August and October of this year. These cases have been in a holding pattern for months as the Supreme Court considers our appeal in the David Meehan case. Because we expect a ruling in that case soon, the superior court decided to end the pause and proceed in scheduling more cases.

The court has identified three plaintiffs for each trial period. This will keep cases moving forward even if one of the plaintiffs scheduled for that time no longer goes to trial (i.e., if they settle their case before trial, we’ll have another plaintiff on deck to take their trial slot). If you are one of the plaintiffs whose case has been scheduled for trial in August or October, we will contact you separately to begin preparations.

This news is good for all clients—whether or not your case has been scheduled for trial and whether or not your case is pending in Rockingham County. Every trial puts pressure on the state to do the right thing for all survivors by settling on fair terms.

We look forward to continuing to fight for you and hold the state accountable.

Settlement Fund class action dismissed

As we told you last week, Judge James Kennedy disappointingly denied our motion to reconsider Judge Dan St. Hilaire’s order denying a preliminary injunction in our lawsuit challenging the state’s harmful changes to the Settlement Fund. Shortly after our update to you last week, Judge Kennedy also granted the state’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit.

While this ruling is disappointing, it gives us a direct pathway to take an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court. We fully intend to do that.

Here’s what’s happened so far in that lawsuit:

1. The state implemented changes to the Settlement Fund that would (a) make the Fund administrator a political appointee and (b) give the attorney general power to veto an award (if, for example, the state believes it’s too high).
2. These changes are not fair to you as they compromise the fairness and neutrality of the process you signed onto. Accordingly, we sued the state over the changes and asked for a preliminary inunction to prevent the changes from taking effect.
3. Judge St. Hilaire oversaw a hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction. Despite two days of witness testimony demonstrating the harm of the Settlement Fund changes to survivors, Judge St. Hilaire denied our request.
4. Shortly after this ruling, Judge St. Hilaire removed himself from this case due to a conflict of interest, and Judge Kennedy stepped in to oversee it.
5. We requested a hearing with Judge Kennedy to ask him to reconsider Judge St. Hilaire’s ruling. After that hearing, Judge Kennedy denied our motion to reconsider and then, without a hearing, granted the State’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit.

We will continue to fight on your behalf at every level and will request an expedited resolution at the Supreme Court (which would speed up the case). Briefing on this matter will take time, but we believe this is our best option to restore the Settlement Fund to its original process—the one that the state originally promised survivors of abuse at YDC.

If you have submitted a Settlement Fund claim, we recommend that you stay the course for now. We will be sure to let you know should our advice change as the legal process unfolds.

***

Thank you, as always, for the trust you have placed in us, and be sure to check Case Status regularly for updates.

[Return to home screen]