United States of America ex rel Tim Green v. Amtech LLC et al
Filing
38
ORDER GRANTING 35 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CV, Case Administrator)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
5
6
7
CASE NO. CV-10-3022-EFS
TIM GREEN,
Plaintiff,
8
10
11
12
13
14
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS
v.
9
AMTECH, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; BLACKFORD CAPITAL
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California
Corporation; COMPOSITES
CONSOLIDATION COMPANY, LLC, a
Delaware Corporation; DOUG
CHRISTIE, an Individual; KIM
BRAZELL, an Individual; BILL
BUSHBAUM, an Individual,
Defendants.
15
16
Before
the
Court,
without
oral
argument,
is
Plaintiff
Tim
17
Green’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
Defendants’
Counterclaims,
ECF
No.
35.
18
Plaintiff
asks
the
Court
to
dismiss
Defendants’
state-law
19
counterclaims
because
the
Court
lacks
the
power
to
exercise
20
supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ state-law claims or, in the
21
alternative,
the
Court
should
decline
to
exercise
supplemental
22
jurisdiction over the inadequately plead state-law claims.
Defendants
23
oppose the motion, contending the Court should exercise supplemental
24
jurisdiction over their four state-law claims: defamation, harassment,
25
cyberstalking, and tortious interference with a business relationship.
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS- 1
1
After reviewing the record and relevant authority, the Court is fully
2
informed.
3
Green’s motion:
4
jurisdiction.
5
A.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Mr.
Defendants’ counterclaims are dismissed for lack of
Background1
From
6
June
2008
to
December
8,
2009,
Mr.
Green
worked
for
7
Defendant Amtech, a company that designs and manufactures composite-
8
based
9
businesses.
products
for
the
U.S.
military
and
private
commercial
Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 31 ¶¶ 1.1 & 3.1.
Mr. Green
10
worked first as an Engineering Manager and then as a Program Manager
11
who reported directly to Defendant Doug Christie, Amtech’s CEO.
12
1.2.
While
13
performing
that
his
Amtech’s
duties
products
at
did
Amtech,
not
Mr.
comply
Id. ¶
Green
14
concerned
15
military’s specifications.
16
discovered that Amtech was inflating its billing rates on budgetary
17
documents submitted to the U.S. military.
Id. ¶¶ 4.16-4.24.
with
became
the
U.S.
In addition, Mr. Green
Id. ¶¶ 4.1 – 4.15.
Mr.
18
19
1
The facts set forth in this section pertaining to Mr. Green’s
20
retaliation
21
Complaint, ECF No. 31.
(9th
Cir.
claim
2003)
are
taken
from
Mr.
Green’s
Third
Amended
See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028
(construing
the
pleadings
in
the
light
most
22
favorable to the pleading party).
The facts set forth in this
23
section pertaining to Defendants’ counterclaims are taken from
24
Defendants’
Answer
and
Counterclaims,
ECF
No.
32.
Cf.
id.
Statements from emails are taken from the emails attached to ECF
25
No. 34.
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS- 2
1
Green also learned that Amtech devised a scheme to receive payment
2
from
3
manufactured.
the
U.S.
government
for
products
that
it
had
not
yet
Id. ¶¶ 4.25-4.29.
4
Mr. Green disclosed his concerns with such conduct to Amtech’s
5
owners and controllers, Defendants Mr. Christie, Kim Brazell, and Bill
6
Bushbaum.
7
not sign off on documents that contained fraudulent information.
8
¶¶ 4.19 & 4.20.
9
25, 2009, to Mr. Christie detailing his concerns, Amtech terminated
10
Id. ¶¶ 4.15, 4.22, 4.30.
Mr. Green advised that he would
Id.
Shortly after Mr. Green wrote a letter on November
Mr. Green’s employment on December 8, 2009.
Id. ¶ 4.33.
After Amtech terminated Mr. Green’s employment, Mr. Green began
11
12
emailing Amtech personnel in late 2009 and early 2010.
13
numerous emails; some of these emails contained computer viruses.
14
Green’s
15
Manager, addressed paycheck issues.
16
on December 22, 2009, Mr. Green emailed Ms. Pippins and Mr. Christie,
17
stating, “You are liars and cheats to your employees, suppliers and
18
customers.”
19
also emailed,
first
emails
to
Kelly
ECF No. 34, Ex. A.
Pippins,
Amtech’s
Mr. Green sent
Human
Mr.
Resource
A series of emails followed, and
Within days of that email, Mr. Green
Are you all truly aware of the path Doug is taking this
down? Do you truly understand what I know, who I know and
the laws in place that will protect me?
Very poor business decisions happening that could destroy
all of you and your investments and futures.
20
21
22
23
Id.
Then on December 27, 2009, Mr. Green emailed Mr. Bushbaum, Mr.
24
Christie, and Mr. Brazell, “I hope your Xmas was as joyful as mine.
25
am looking forward to our Happy New Year together; I’ll be the one
26
riding a Pale Horse.”
Id.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS- 3
I
1
On April 22, 2010, Mr. Green filed this False Claims Act lawsuit
2
alleging in part that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of 31
3
U.S.C. § 3730(h), which prohibits an employer from discharging an
4
employee who engages in a lawful act in furtherance of an effort to
5
stop his employer’s fraudulent activities against the U.S. government.
6
ECF No. 1.
7
ECF No. 15, Mr. Green filed a Third Amended Complaint, which solely
8
seeks relief under § 3730(h).
9
their Answer and Counterclaims, ECF No. 32.
After the U.S. declined to participate in this lawsuit,
defamation,
tortious
Defendants’ harassment,
10
cyberstalking,
11
relationships counterclaims are based on Mr. Green’s post-termination
12
conduct.
13
motion to dismiss.
14
A.
Id. at 5-6.
and
On July 11, 2013, Defendants filed
interference
with
business
On July 31, 2013, Mr. Green filed the instant
ECF No. 35
Standard
A federal district court is a court of limited jurisdiction:
15
16
authority
to
17
Congress.
K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027
18
(9th Cir. 2011).
19
jurisdiction over state-law claims, a district court may exercise
20
supplemental
21
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that
22
they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of
23
the United States Constitution.”
24
claim is “part of the same case or controversy,” id., when it shares a
25
“‘common nucleus of operative fact’ with the federal claims and the
26
state
and
hear
a
matter
be
specifically
given
to
it
by
Although a federal court typically does not have
jurisdiction
federal
must
over
claims
state-law
claims
if
they
18 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
would
normally
be
tried
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS- 4
are
“so
A state-law
together.”
1
Bahrampour v. R.O. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Trs.
2
of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Desert
3
Valley
4
(internal quotations and citations omitted)).
5
part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim, the court is
6
to then exercise supplemental jurisdiction unless 1) the state claim
7
raises a novel or complex issue of state law, 2) the state claim
8
substantially predominates over the federal claim(s), 3) all of the
9
federal claims have been dismissed, or 4) there are compelling reasons
Landscape
Main.,
10
to decline jurisdiction.
11
B.
Inc.,
333
F.3d
923,
925
(9th
Cir.
2003)
If a state claim forms
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1-4).
Analysis
12
Upon review of Mr. Green’s 31 U.S.C. § 3730 wrongful-termination
13
claim and Defendants’ state claims, the Court concludes Defendants’
14
post-termination state claims are not “so related” to the wrongful-
15
termination claim to “form part of the same case or controversy.”
16
U.S.C.
17
Defendants’ counterclaims focus solely on Mr. Green’s post-termination
18
conduct.
19
do
20
Although many of the witnesses may be the same, the scope of testimony
21
and evidence presented will be substantially different in order to
22
support or defend against Defendants’ post-termination state claims.
23
Therefore, because the Court finds that Defendants’ counterclaims do
24
not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as Mr. Green’s
25
wrongful-termination claim, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction
26
to hear Defendants counterclaims as they are not part of the same case
not
§
1367.
Unlike
Mr.
Green’s
wrongful-termination
28
claim,
Accordingly, Mr. Green’s claim and Defendants’ counterclaims
involve
one
transaction,
scheme,
occurrence,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS- 5
or
venture.
1
or controversy.
As a result, the Court need not engage in § 1367’s
2
second analytical step.
3
C.
Conclusion
4
For the above-given reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
5
1.
Plaintiff’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
Defendants’
ECF No. 35, is GRANTED.
6
2.
7
Defendants’ four counterclaims are DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
Order
11
and
provide
The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this
Office.
12
DATED this
copies
17th
to
all
counsel
and
the
U.S.
day of September 2013.
13
14
15
Counterclaims,
s/ Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q:\EFS\Civil\2010\3022.dism.countercl.lc1.docx
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS- 6
Attorney’s
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?