Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc. et al

Filing 54

ORDER adopting in part and rejecting in part 40 Report and Recommendations; finding as moot 53 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 6/30/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
JASON BOUDREAU,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 16-649 S
)
AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE CONTROLS,
)
INC., et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond’s
Report

and

Recommendation

(ECF

No.

40)

recommending

that

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 4 pp. 126-134; ECF No.
5)

be

granted.1

Plaintiff

has

filed

an

Objection

to

that

This Complaint was originally filed in state court before
being removed to federal court. While pending in state court,
Defendants Golden Plains Software and Russell Turner filed a
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4 pp. 126-134) arguing that
Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations, and Plaintiff objected to that motion (Id. at 280320). Before the state court could provide a ruling, the case
was removed to federal court at which point the state court
record became part of the federal court record. (See ECF No. 4.)
Once in federal court, Defendant Automatic Temperature Controls
filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) on substantially the same
grounds as the previous motion to dismiss filed by the other
Defendants in state court. Plaintiff, once again, opposed that
motion (ECF No. 12), and the matter was referred to Magistrate
Judge Almond. Magistrate Judge Almond reasonably interpreted the
referral to encompass both the motion to dismiss filed in
1

recommendation.

(ECF

No.

41.)

After

reviewing

this

issue

de

novo, the Court agrees with part, but not all, of Magistrate
Judge Almond’s recommendation.
Plaintiff
employer’s

alleges

software

that

his

company

former

employer

(collectively,

and

his

“Defendants”)

monitored Plaintiff’s electronic communications in violation of
various federal and state laws. (Complaint, ECF No. 4 pp. 1-61.)
Plaintiff

filed

his

Complaint

on

August

1,

2016.

Magistrate

Judge Almond reviewed the federal and state statutes at issue
and determined that they are subject to two-

and three-year

statute of limitations periods, respectively. Magistrate Judge
Almond also found that, by Plaintiff’s own admission, Plaintiff
was made aware that Defendants were monitoring his electronic
communications

on

January

24,

2012.

Because

Plaintiff’s

awareness of Defendants’ actions began over three years prior to
the filing of the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Almond recommends
that the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety based on the
applicable statute of limitations periods.
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation as it
pertains to his state-law claims, but does not object to the

federal court as well as the motion to dismiss filed in state
court. Plaintiff does not object to Magistrate Judge Almond’s
consideration of the motion to dismiss filed in state court, and
the Court will consider the Report and Recommendation on that
motion as well as the motion to dismiss filed in federal court.
2

recommendation that his federal claims be dismissed. Absent any
objection, the Report and Recommendation is accepted as to the
federal claims, which are dismissed with prejudice. See United
States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986); Park
Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir.
1980). The Court is therefore left only to consider whether
dismissal of Plaintiff’s state-law claims is warranted based on
the applicable statute of limitations.
The Report and Recommendation notes that Plaintiff admitted
in a deposition that he became aware in January, 2012 that his
employer

had

used

some

form

of

electronic

surveillance

to

monitor Plaintiff’s communications at work. (R&R 3, ECF No. 40.)
Plaintiff contends that he did not know the full extent of his
employer’s

electronic

surveillance

until

November,

2013.

For

example, Plaintiff claims that he was unaware that his employer
monitored his key strokes, took screen shots of his computer,
and recorded the contents of his bank accounts. (Pl.’s Obj. to
the R&R 2, ECF No. 41.)
Typically, where there are questions of fact regarding when
Plaintiff gained sufficient knowledge to begin the statute of
limitations

period,

such

questions

are

not

appropriately

resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. Young v. Lepone, 305
F.3d

1,

8

(1st

Cir.

2002)

(“Where,

as

here,

an

order

of

dismissal is predicated on the statute of limitations, we will
3

affirm only if ‘the pleader's allegations leave no doubt that an
asserted

claim

is

time-barred.’”)

(quoting

LaChapelle

v.

Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 142 F.3d 507, 509 (1st Cir. 1998).
Moreover,

because

dismissed,

the

Plaintiff’s

Court

Plaintiff’s

remaining

1367(c)(3).

The

need

federal

not

state-law

Court

claims

exercise
claims.

therefore

have

been

jurisdiction
See

rejects

28

the

over

U.S.C.
Report

§
and

Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s state-law claims and remands
this case to state court. The Court provides no opinion as to
whether

Plaintiff’s

state-law

claims

are

barred

by

Rhode

Island’s applicable statute of limitations.
Lastly, on June 21, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a Motion to
Supplement

Plaintiff’s

Objection

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 53.) In that motion, Plaintiff asks the
Court to consider

the Motion to Amend

and Amended Complaint

previously filed by Plaintiff in state court. (Id.) Because the
remaining state-law claims are being remanded to state court,
the Court need not address that issue. Plaintiff’s Motion is
therefore passed as moot.
As described above, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
40) is ACCEPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART. The Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED as it relates to Plaintiff’s federal
claims,

which

are

DISMISSED

WITH

PREJUDICE.

The

Report

and

Recommendation is REJECTED as it relates to Plaintiff’s state4

law

claims,

which

are

REMANDED

to

state

court.

Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is therefore GRANTED as to the
federal claims and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the state-law
claims. Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Plaintiff’s Objection
to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53) is PASSED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: June 30, 2017

5