Javery et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Filing 17

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss and/or for More Definite Statement (Rec. Doc. 8) filed by defendant, Lockheed Martin Corporation is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/30/2017. (ajn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARK JAVERY & BRIAN DEJAN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-5106

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.

SECTION: "A" (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Dismiss and/or for
More Definite Statement (Rec. Doc. 8) filed by defendant, Lockheed Martin
Corporation. Plaintiffs Mark Javery and Brian Dejan oppose the motion. The motion,
submitted on August 23, 2017, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiffs Mark Javery and Brian Dejan have filed suit against Lockheed Martin
Corporation asserting claims for violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
Javery alleges that prior to the termination of his employment on May 20, 2014, he was
employed by Lockheed as an Infrastructure Operations Manager. (Comp. ¶ 6). Dejan
alleges that prior to the termination of his employment on May 21, 2014, he was a
Project Engineer employed by Camgian Microsystems, Inc. and subcontracted out to
Lockheed. (Id. ¶ 7). Both plaintiffs worked at the Stennis Space Center on the Test
Operation Contract. Dejan alleges that although Camgian was his direct employer,
Lockheed Martin was his “joint employer.” (Id. ¶ 8).
Both plaintiffs allege that they were terminated for engaging in “protected
activity” in violation of federal law. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they reported
Page 1 of 3

unauthorized charges to the Test Operations Contract to management shortly before
being terminated. (Comp. ¶ 11).
Lockheed moves to dismiss the case arguing that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts
sufficient to state a claim for relief. Alternatively, Lockheed moves for a more definite
statement.
In the context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept all factual allegations
in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff=s favor.
Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
(1974); Lovick v. Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)). However, the
foregoing tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009). Thread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550, U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
The central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether, in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v.
Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413,
418 (5th Cir. 2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to Astate a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.@ Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). AA
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.@ Id. The Court does not accept as true Aconclusory allegations, unwarranted
factual inferences, or legal conclusions.@ Id. (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d
Page 2 of 3

690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.
Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).
The Court is persuaded that although sparse in factual content, the complaint is
sufficiently detailed to state a claim and to allow Lockheed to target its discovery to flesh
out the claim. This is particularly true given that both of the plaintiffs have been
litigating their terminations from Lockheed, and the events surrounding those adverse
employment decisions, since 2014.1 The Court is persuaded that Lockheed has more
than sufficient notice and understanding of the nature of the claims asserted to move
forward with its defense of the case.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss and/or for More Definite
Statement (Rec. Doc. 8) filed by defendant, Lockheed Martin Corporation is
DENIED.
August 30, 2017

JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javery’s case remains pending as to his defamation claim. (CA14-2644). The Court entered
judgment in favor of Lockheed as to Dejan’s claims in March 2016. (CA14-2731).
Page 3 of 3
1