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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?