Discovery Communications, LLC v. Computer Sciences Corporation, No. 13-1969 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1969 DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:12-cv-02894-DKC) Submitted: March 31, 2014 Before KEENAN Circuit Judge. and WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 1, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christine Nicolaides Kearns, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. M. Carter DeLorme, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Discovery the district Communications, court s ( Discovery ) granting order LLC Computer appeals Sciences Corporation s ( CSC ) motion to dismiss its complaint, in which it alleged that CSC tortiously interfered with its employment contract with its chief accounting officer, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Finding no error, we affirm. We review de novo the district court s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Sec y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation, Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). a judge [W]hen ruling on a defendant s motion to dismiss, must accept as true contained in the complaint. 94 (2007). all of the factual allegations Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, However, [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). contain enough facts plausible on its face. To state a to state a claim Bell Atl. The complaint must to relief that is Id. at 570. claim for tortious interference with contract in Maryland, a plaintiff must allege: (1) existence of a contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant s knowledge of that contract; (3) defendant s intentional interference with that contract; (4) breach of that contract by 2 the third party; and (5) resulting damages to the plaintiff. Fowler v. Printers II, Inc., 598 A.2d 794, 802 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991). It is the successful interference that is the tort, not the breach of the contract. of the former. The latter is but proof Lake Shore Investors v. Rite Aid Corp., 461 A.2d 725, 730-31 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983) (internal footnote omitted). On review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. In the complaint, employment contract Discovery between alleged it and the Thomas existence Colan, of that an Colan materially breached the agreement by terminating his employment with Discovery prior to the expiration of the contract term, and that it sustained damages. Discovery further alleged that it put CSC on notice of the employment agreement after CSC offered Colan employment resignation. but before the effective date of Colan s Significantly, Discovery failed to allege that CSC intentionally interfered with the employment agreement between the date Discovery put CSC on notice of the contract and Colan s breach of the agreement. Discovery s complaint alleges that CSC s intentional interference was the act of employing Colan, but that act occurred after Colan s resignation. not allege informed of that CSC Colan s took any contract earlier with 3 Discovery did actions Discovery that after being constituted intentional interference. Thus, Discovery failed to sufficiently allege a claim for tortious interference against CSC. Discovery further claims that the district court should have sua sponte granted leave to amend the complaint. We review for abuse of discretion the district court s denial of a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, Equal Rights Ctr. v. 603 (4th Cir. 2010). Discovery did not, however, move to amend its complaint in the district court, and the court s failure to grant a motion that was never discretion. properly made cannot constitute an abuse of Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm., Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th Cir. 2008). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in failing to grant leave to amend sua sponte. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
