United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
DICLERICO, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Beaulac and Nicholas Beattie brought suit against their
previous employers: All Systems Satellite Distributors,
Inc.; Richard Logiudice, an owner and officer
of All Systems; and Gene's Electronics, Inc. Beaulac and
Beattie allege claims against All Systems, Logiudice, and
Gene's that arose from events that occurred after Beaulac
left All Systems and Gene's hired and then fired Beaulac
and Beattie. All Systems and Logiudice move to dismiss the
claims brought against them.
considering a motion to dismiss, the court accepts all
well-pleaded facts as true, disregarding mere legal
conclusions, and resolves reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff's favor. Galvin v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 852
F.3d 146, 155 (1st Cir. 2017). Taken in that light, the
complaint must state sufficient facts to support a plausible
claim for relief. In re Curran, 855 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir.
2017). The plausibility standard is satisfied if the
factual allegations in the complaint “are sufficient to
support the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable.” In re Fidelity ERISA Float Litig., 829
F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The complaint need not include “a high degree
of factual specificity” but “must contain more
than a rote recital of the elements of a cause of
action.” Carcia-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d
100, 103 (1st Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
their objection to the motion to dismiss, Beaulac and Beattie
argue that the motion should not be considered because
discovery is needed to develop facts to support their claims.
They are mistaken. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is
an appropriate means to test the sufficiency of the pleadings
and does not pertain to what facts may be learned through
discovery. See Charles Alan Wright & Arthur Miller, 5
Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1203 (3d ed. 2017);
see also, e.g., Filler v. Kellett, 859 F.3d 148, 150 (1st
Cir. 2017); Pitroff v. United States, 2017 WL
3614436, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 22, 2017); Metro. Prop.
& Casualty Ins. Co. v. Savin Hill Family
Chiropractic, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2017 WL 3120273,
at *7 (D. Mass. July 21, 2017); Adams v. Town of
Montague, 2015 WL 1292402, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar. 23,
2015) (explaining difference between a motion to dismiss
and a motion for summary judgment).
worked at Satellite Systems beginning in 2006 and was
promoted to the position of director of sales in New York and
New England in 2008. Her job involved selling satellite
television services. Logiudice was the principal owner and
chief executive officer of All Systems.
Logiudice had had difficult relationships with some of his
employees, Beaulac's relationship with Logiudice was good
until 2012. Logiudice then imposed new conditions on Beaulac
that included increased travel requirements so that she had
to be away from home half of each month and demands that she
have her car serviced in Connecticut although she lived in
New Hampshire. Beaulac believed that the new conditions were
intended to force her to leave All Systems. Beaulac resigned,
which was effective October 14, 2016.
after her resignation, Beaulac received job offers from
Gene's Electronics and Perfect 10, another satellite
distribution company. Beaulac negotiated with Gene's,
explaining that she needed a guarantee of employment for at
least six months and wanted a job offer for her
fiancé, Beattie. Gene's offered Beaulac and
Beattie jobs in a letter dated October 26, 2016, and they
November of 2016, the principals of Gene's, Stephanie and
Darnell Oliver, told Beaulac and Beattie that Logiudice had
threatened to stop doing business with Gene's unless they
terminated Beaulac's employment. The Olivers proposed
that they would change the employment relationship to an
independent contractor relationship. The next day, however,
the Olivers said that they could not offer the independent
contractor positions because of a conflict with All Systems.
Gene's then terminated Beaulac and Beattie.
learned that Dan Reno of Hughes Communications had sent her
an email, to her All Systems email address, offering her a
job there. Logiudice found the email and called Hughes
Communications, asserting that Hughes was trying to steal his
employee. Logiudice's response to the email ended the
offer from Hughes.
and Beattie brought suit against All Systems, Logiudice, and
Gene's. The defendants all moved to dismiss the claims
brought against them. In response, Beaulac and Beattie filed
objections and also filed an amended complaint.
the amended complaint became the operative complaint in the
case, the motions to dismiss were denied without prejudice.
In the amended complaint, Beaulac and Beattie allege claims
against All Systems and Logiudice for tortious interference
with a business relationship, Counts I and IV, and ...