Cynthia Harmon v. DynCorp International, Inc., No. 15-1248 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1248 CYNTHIA HARMON; FRAZIER SHACK; SHONDALE ALFORD; MELVIN RILEY, YVETTA HORSFORD SMITH; Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, INC., a/k/a DynCorp LLC, d/b/a DynCorp International FZ-LLC, International Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01597-LMB-TRJ) Submitted: October 30, 2015 Before WYNN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Decided: December 14, 2015 Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott J. Bloch, John Carl Francesco Vinci, LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT J. BLOCH, PA, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jason Branciforte, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs Cynthia Harmon, Frazier Shack, Yvetta Horsford Smith, Shondale Alford, and Melvin Riley appeal the district court’s order denying relief and related discrimination, International, Inc. on their breach-of-contract, claims against DynCorp Plaintiffs also appeal a separate order dismissing without prejudice their qui tam claim under the False Claims Act. The Finding no error, we affirm. district court correctly held that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support an alter ego theory of liability against DynCorp. various acts employed of them, conclusory misconduct but the by two complaint allegations imputing Plaintiffs alleged businesses offered these that only acts formerly vague to and DynCorp. Accordingly, Plaintiffs failed to state a claim of alter ego liability against DynCorp. 679 (2009). Defendant, the Moreover, district See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, because court DynCorp did not was err in the sole party dismissing the complaint in its entirety. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Plaintiffs’ False Claims Act claim or denying leave to file a fifth complaint after the first four proved unsuccessful. judgment. We therefore affirm the district court’s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
