United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MATTHEW J. CHANNON, Plaintiff,
JEFF TAVANGAR, SHELLEY BACA, JENNIFER IRELAND, ARMADA GROUP, INC., NATALIE GANN, and TP-LINK RESEARCH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
TPRA'S MOTION TO DISMISS
MATTER comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss filed
on May 20, 2019 by Defendant TP-Link Research America
Corporation (“TPRA”). Doc. 48.
Having reviewed the parties' pleadings and the applicable
law, the Court finds that Defendant's motion is
well-taken and, therefore, is granted.
case arises from a staffing agreement for technical
consulting services, in which Plaintiff alleges that he was
unlawfully terminated. This case is before the Court on
diversity jurisdiction. The Complaint asserts numerous claims
against several defendants, including Defendant TPRA, who
filed this motion. Armada Group, Inc. (“Armada”),
which has already been dismissed from this case, is a
staffing agency that locates individuals who provide
technical services and provides these individuals to
Armada's clients, which are often technology companies.
Defendant TPRA is a technology company that develops, among
other things, software for computer networking equipment.
According to the complaint, on June 25, 2015, Armada signed
an agreement with Plaintiff Matthew Channon's company,
Loitery LLC, under which Plaintiff's company was to
provide services for TPRA. At that time and at Armada's
request, Plaintiff agreed to undergo a background check.
Plaintiff claims he began performing services for TPRA on or
about June 25, 2015, while his background check was still
early July, during the federal portion of the background
check, Armada learned that Plaintiff was facing pending
felony charges for wire-fraud in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico. Armada provided this
background information to TPRA as agreed between the parties.
On July 13, 2015, TPRA advised Armada of its desire to
terminate its contract with Armada regarding Plaintiff's
services, effective July 14, 2015. See Doc. 10-4.
The termination of that agreement was effective July 14,
2015. Complaint, ¶¶ 32-34. After TPRA terminated
its contract with Armada, Armada also terminated its
agreement with Plaintiff.
was subsequently convicted of five counts of wire fraud and
sentenced to one year and one-day imprisonment. Complaint,
¶ 14; see also, Doc. 25, p. 1 (Plaintiff “pled not
guilty to, and was later convicted of, five counts of Wire
Fraud in this Court”); Doc. 45, p. 2, fn 1 (granting
request for judicial notice of Plaintiff's convictions
felony criminal charges pending against him).
filed this Complaint pro se on June 26, 2018, and
was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
alleging that he was fired for having pending criminal
charges; that all Defendants were aware of these charges when
they decided to terminate him; and that his termination was
unlawful. The Complaint alleges the following counts against
Count 1 - Violation of California Labor Code 432.7(A);
Count 2 - Interference with Contractual Relations;
Count 4 - Breach of K; and
Count 7 - Civil Conspiracy
TPRA moves to dismiss all of these claims. Plaintiff has not
filed a response. Under this Court's local rules, failure
to file a response to a motion “constitutes consent to
grant the motion.” D.N.M.L-R Civ. 7.1(b). The Court may
dismiss a complaint for failure to file response where it
considers only defendants' arguments and the
complaint's allegations. Giummo v. Olsen, 701
Fed.Appx. 992, 925 (11th Cir. 2017; see Issa v. Comp
USA, 354 F.3d 1174, 1177-78 (10th Cir. 2003) (district
court erred by dismissing complaint for failure to state
claim merely because plaintiff failed to file response to
motion to dismiss that was required by local rules.
survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the
complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). “A 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. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). Conclusory allegations of liability, without
supporting factual content, are insufficient. “The