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)

Download PDF
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?