Del Pilar Pose Beiro v. CFA Institute, No. 3:2018cv00088 - Document 17 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 2/4/19. (hnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U. S.DISI K URT AT RG NOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGFNIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION FE0 2j 2gjg JULI A-C.DUDL ,CLERK BY;X' D''UW LE M ARIA DEL PILAR PO SE BEIR O, Plaintiff, CivilAction No.3:18CV00088 M EM OR ANDUM O PINION CFA W STITUTE, By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Defendant. M ada DelPilarPose Beiro,proceeding pro K and Lq formapauoeris,filed thisaction . against CFA Instimte. The case is presently before the courton the defendant's m otion to dism iss. Forthereasonssetforth below,the courtwillg' rantthedefendant'sm otion. Backzround Thefollowingfactsaretakerèfrom thecomplaintandthewritten settlementagreementon whichitexplicitlyrelies. SeePhillipsv.LCIInt'l.Inc.,190F.3d609,618(4thCir.1999)(noting thatthe courtcould properly consider a docllment subm itted by the defendantin determ ining whether to dismiss the com plaint çsbecause it was integralto and explicitly relied on in the complainf). The plaintiffresidesin London,England. In Augustof2016,she enrolled in the CFA Program offered through the defendantin Charlottesville,Virginia. Theplaintifftook theLevel Del Pilar Pose Beiro v. CFA Institute Doc. 17 11CFA Exam in Jtme of2017. W hen theresultswerennnounced inAugustof2017,theplaintiff lenrnedthatshehad failed theexnm . Both beforeandaftertheplaintiffreceivedherexnm score,theplaintiffvoiced anllmberof complaintsto the defendant's customçr service tenm . For instance,she çomplained that%svery Dockets.Justia.com poorfacilities''wereprovided during the exnm ,thatthere wasaone-week delay in receiving her exnm score,and thatthecustom erservicetenm did nottim ely respond to heremails. Compl.6, Dlct.N o.6. On August4,2017,the plaintiffreceived a telephone callf' rom 1EM r.Kaisery''a customerservicerepresentative,regarding hercomplaints. The plaintiffallegesthatM r.Kaiser verbally agreedto changetheresultofherexnm toapassing scoreifshew ould stop complaining: Heaskedm ehow Iwanted to resolvethematter;Srst1askedforan exam feerefnndthatwasrejectedbyhimjthenIaskedforachange ofm ark ofmy exam to $apass'....M r.Kaiserthen said thathe would be able to help me mld offered m e a retabulation. Iknew whata retabulation wasand suggested thatthiswasnotenough. I wanted aregrade. Mr.Kaiseraqeedtogetmearepadeofmy exam toapassif1stoppedcomplalning. Iagreeldqandheagreed tocallmeback onthe7thlofjAugusttoconfirm completion. Id = Theplaintiffsubsequently informedthedefendantofherconversationwithM r.Kaiserand advisedthedefendantthatshehadrecordedthephonecallin whichM r.K aiserhadverballyagreed to giveherapassingscoreon theexnm . Theplaintiffsubsequently received an em ailfrom Geoff . M acdonald,legalcotm selforthedefendant. In theem ail,M r.M acdonald disputedtheplaintiffs assertions and requested thatshe provide a copy ofthe purported recording ofherconversation withM r.Kaiser. TheplaintiffallegesthatsheS'feltthat(M r.M acdonald)wastryingtointimidate Eherl,''and that çGhe wanted to dnmage (herj reputation saying that Esheq was telling false statem ents.'' Id.7. OnAugust23,2017,theplaintiffadvisedthedefendantviaem ailthatshewasçGplnnningto bringthiscaseto Sm allClaim sCourt''ifthe partiesweretmableto reach an agreem entregarding the ççmisleading infonnation provided''by the defendant and its agents. JZ In response, members ofthe defendant's Sçprofessional Conduct departm ent''advised the plaintiffthatthey were ttopening an investigation formisrepresentation,''based on the beliefthattheplaintiffhad 2 submitted a Gçfalseinvoice''requesting a reftmd ofherexam fee. Id.7-8. Theplaintiffalleges that the investigation was tmdertaken to intim idate her, dnm age her reputation, and inflict psychologicalhann,andthatitappearedtobeaçtconspiracy''againsther. Seeid.at8($çIallege thatM r.Jason Kaiser and M . 1..Geoff M acdonald collaborated with the Professional Conduct, during August2017,to open an investigation. This seem s a conspiracy againstme. ''). The . investigation w asclosed on Janumy 11,2018,atwhich time SdprofessionalConductdid not5nd gtheplaintiftlguiltyofmisrepresentation-'' Id.8. Three daysbeforetheinvestigation ended,the plaintifffiled suitagainstthedefendantin the GeneralDistrictCourtforthe City ofCharlottesville. Theplaintiffclaim sthat,by thattime, herSlreputationafworkwasdnmaged.'' J#=. Becausetheplaintiffdidnotreceiveapassingscore ontheexam andwasthesubjectofaninvestigationbythedefendant,theplaintifflostincomeand ççhadtoleaveEherqwork.'' J#a.;seealsoii 10(notingthattheplaintic smanagerthoughtshewas a(ijjgtyNN;. ThepM ieswerescheduled to appearin state courton Jtme22,2018. On Jtme 20,2018, the defendantpresented the plaintiffwith a written settlem entap eem ent,through which the defendant soughtto Sçresolve any and a1lclaims against CFA Institute and/or its employees,'' including theclaim filed in the GeneralDistrictCourtfortheCity ofCharlottesville. Settlem ent Agreement 1,Def.'s Ex. 1,Dkt.No.9-1; see also Compl. 11 (discussing the settlement agreement). ThewrittenagreementprovidedthatCFA Institutewaswillingtooffertheplaintiff çEasettlementinthenmountof$750 (theeqtlivalentofareftmdof(her)exnm feesfor2017,plus $100),andinadditionano-feeretabulationof(theplaintiY s)answersheetfortheJune2017CFA Program Exnm,Level 11,''if the plaintiff agreed to the remaining provisions and signed the agreement within 24 hours. Settlem ent A greement 1. Both parties signed the settlem ent agreem enton Jtme21,2018. Undertheterm softhe agreem ent,theplaintiffagreed to withdraw ordijmissany pending com plaintoraction againstCFA Institute,and çGreleaseany claim against CFA Institute and related persons or entities as setforth above arising from (the plaintiffsq participation in the CFA Progrnm ortheprovision ofcustomerserviceto Ethe plaintiffj.'' Id. Theagreem entemphasizedthatthereleaseprovision would applyto tsallclaims''theplaintiffhad ormay havehad,çtwhetherlcnown orllnknom w''asofthedateshe signed the agreement. JZ The agreem entfurtherprovided thatit contained çGthe entire tmderstanding ofthe parties with respecttothesubjectmatterhereof,''thatittssupersedeld)a11priortmderstandingsoragreements, oralorm itten,with respectthereto,''andthatitGûshallbe govem ed by and construed according to thelawsoftheComm onwea1th ofVirginiaandshallbebindingupon theparties,theirsuccessors, assignsand heirs-'' Id.2. On September24,2018,theplaintiffcomm enced the instantaction againstCFA lnstitute by filing a fonn çGcom plaintfora civilcase alleging breach of conkact.'' Compl.1. Liberally construed,thecomplaintappearsto assertthatCFA Institutebreachedthe verbalagreem entwith M r.Kaiserand them itten settlem entagreementby failing to change herexnm gradeto apassing score. Theplaintiffalso indicatesthatsheisasserting two additionalcausesofaction:Stplnitive damagesforbreach ofcontract''andSçbreachofcontractaccompaniedbywillfultolt'' L4=6. . The defendanthasmoved to dismissthe complainttmderRule 120946)ofthe Federal RulesofCivilProcedure. Thedefendant'sm otionhasbeen fully briefed bythepartiesandisripe forreview . Standard ofR eview Rule12(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedtlrepermitsapartytoseekdismissalfor faillzre to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. W hen deciding a m otion to dism iss 4 tmderthisrule,thecourtmustacceptastnze al1well-pleaded allegationsand draw a11reasonable factualinferencesintheplaintiffsfavor. Ericksonv.Pardus,551U.S.89,94(2007). fçW hilea complaintattackedbyaRule120946)motiontodismissdoesnotneeddetailedfactualallegations, aplaintiffsobligation toprovide the grotmdsofEherqentitlementto reliefrequiresmore than labelsandconclusions,and aformulaicrecitation oftheelem entsofacauseofaction willnotdo.'' BellAtl.Com .v.Twombly,550 U.S.544,555 (2007)(internalcitation and quotation marks omitted). To survivedismissalforfailureto stateaclaim,G$acomplaintmustcontain suftkient facm alm atter,accepted astnle,to çstate aclaim forreliefthatisplausibleon itsface.''' Ashcroft v.lqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingTwombly,550U.S.at570). Discussion The defendants have moved to dismissthe complainton severalgrounds,including the following:(1)the plaintiffs claim forbreach of an alleged oralagreementis barred by the settlementagreement;(2)theplaintifffailstostateaclaim forbreachofthesettlementagreement; and(3)theplaintifffailstostateaclaim fors&willfultort.'' Forthefollowingreasons,thecourt çoncludesthata1lthreeargllm entshavem erit. CFA Institute firstarguesthatany claim based on an alleged oralcontractin Augustof 2017 isbarredby thewritten settlem entagreem ent. UnderVirginialaw ,Sçsettlem entagreem ents aretreated ascontractssubjectto the generalprinciplesofcontractinterpretation.'' Byrum v. Bearlnv.Co.,936 F.2d 173,175 (4th Cir.1991). Thus,Sdthepreclusive effectofa settlement agreem ent should be m easured by the intentofthe parties.'' Olzio Valley Envtl.Coalition v. Azacoma CoalCo.,556 F.3d 177,211 (4th Cir.2009)(citation and intemalquotation marks omitted);seealsùFirstSec.Fed.Sav.Bnnk.Inc.v.M couilken,480 S.E.2d485,487 (Va.1997) (ççf' hescopeofareleaseagreement,likethetermsofany contract,isgenerally governedby the 5 expressed intention oftheparties.'l. StW heretheparties'intentisclearfrom theunnmbiguous termsofthecontract,construed asawhole,(thecourtqneed notand carmotresortto extrinsic evidenceofintent'' Balav.Va.Dep'tofConservation& Recreation,614F.App'x 636,639(4th Cir.2015)(citationsomitted);seealsoSweelyHoldingssLLC v.Stm-l-rustBnnk,820 S.E.2d596, 602 (Va.2018)(çGW ordsmatter,and wordsin a contract,when clear,supersede unarticulated intentions-'). Uponreview ofthesettlementagreem ent,thecourtconcludesthatitbarsany claim related tothealleged oralcontract9om Augustof2017. By signingthewritten agreem entand accepting a settlem entin the amountof $750.00,the plaintiff agreed to ççrelease any claim ''againstthe defendantçtarising f' rom gher)participation in the CFA Program orthe provision ofcustomer service''to theplaintiff. Settlem ehtAgreem ent1. Theplaintiffacknowledged thatthe release would apply to ççallclaim s''shel'may have,whetherknown orlmknown,''asofthedateon which shesignedtheagreement. JZ Theplaintifffurtheracknowledgedthatthesettlementagreement containedtheGçentiretmderstandingoftheparties''andSçsupersedeldqal1priortmderstandingsor agreements,oralorwritten.'' 1(J=at2. Basedontheplain languageofthesettlementapeement, theplaintiffcleady waivedtherightto pursuehercurrentclaim forbreach oforalcontract,since such claim arises f' rom the plaintiY s participation in the CFA Progrnm and is based on an agreem entor tm derstanding thatpredated the written settlem ent agreement. A ccordingly,the claim forbreach oforalcontractissubjecttodismissaltmderRule12(b)(6). Thecourtlikew ise concludesthatthe plaintifffailsto state a claim forbreach ofthe w ritten settlem entagreem ent. The plaintiffdoes notallege thatCFA Instimte failed to mtabulate her answer sheetorpay her$750.00,asrequired tmdertheplain term softhe settlem entagreem ent. q , Instead,thisclaim also appearsto bebased on thefactthatthedefendantdidnotchangeherexam 6 resulttoapassing score. However,theplain language ofthesettlem entagreem entdem onstrates thatthe CFA Institute owed theplaintiffno such obligation. The plaintiffacknowledges in the complaintthatshe tmderstood the difference between a tsretabtllation''and a iEregrade ...to a pass.'' Compl.6. AlthoughtheCFA Instituteofferedtoperform alsno-feeretabulation of(the plaintiffsjanswersheet''thedefendantdidnotagreetochangeherexam resulttoapassingscore. SettlementAgreem ent1. W hile the plaintiffis obviously dissatissed with the outcome ofthe retabulation and, in hindsight, might have insisted on different contracm al terms, the plain language ofthe settlem entagreem entcontrols. See Babcock & W ilcox Co.v.Areva NP.J. nc., 788 S.E.2d237,249-50 (Va.2016)(ç$Itisthecourt'sduty to declarewhattheinstrumentitself saysitsays. (W jhatthepartiesclaim theymighthavesaid,orshouldhavesaid,cnnnotalterwhat they acmally said.'') (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because the plaintiY s claim for breach ofthe settlement agreem ent contlicts with the plain languageofthe contract,thisclaim m ustbedismissed.* Finally,the cottrtagreeswith the defendantthatthe com plaintfailsto state a claim for sçwillf' ultort.'' Compl.6. In her briefin opposition,the plaintiffappearsto indicate thattllis claim isbased on an alleged tGconspiracy''on thepm'tofseveralofthedefendant'semployeesto underm ineherability to work in the snancialindustry. To the extentthattheplaintiffasserts a claim forcivilconspiracy,such claim issubjectto dismissalforatleasttwo reasons. First,the plaintiff does not allege that the defendant's employees conspired with anyone outside the com pany oroperated outsidethe scope oftheiragency. Consequently,theclaim isbarred by the intracom orateimmunity doctrine,underwhich Gçactsofcop orateagentsareactsofthecorporation *In lightofthecourt'sconclusionthattheplaintisfailstostateaclaim forbreachofcontract,thecourtneed notaddresstherequestforpunitive damagesassociated with the contractclaims. Nonetheless,thecourtnotesthat S%ltqhereisastrong presumption in Virginiaagainstawarding ptmitivedamagesforbreach ofcontract'' Cancun AdvenmreTom' s.Inc.v.UnderwaterDesianerCo..862F. 2d1044,1048(4thCir.1988)(collectingcases). itselt and corporateemployeescnnnotconspirewitheach otherorwiththecorporatiom'' eplus Tech..Inc.v.Aboud,313F.3d 166,179(4thCir.2002);seealsoRosenthalv.R.W .SmithCo.,260 F.Supp.3d 588,593-94(W .D.Va.2017)'çlr flherecnnnotbeaconspiracybetweenagentsofa corporation operating within thescopeoftheirduties.'). Second,acivilconspiracy claim also requiresproofthatan Gsunderlying tortwascomm itted.'' Almy v.Grisham ,639 S.E.2d 182,188 (Va.2007);see also Ten' y v.StmTrustBnnks.Inc.,493 F.App'x 345,357 (4th Cir.2012) (explainingthatthesistmlawfulact'element''ofacivilconspiracyclaim çirequiresthatamember oftheallegedconspiracyhavetcommitted'an Glmderlyingtort'''). Becausetheplaintiffdoesnot identify any tmderlying tortcom mitted by the defendant's employees,herconspiracy claim also failson thisgrotm d. C onclusion Forthereasonsstated,thecourtwillgrantthedefendant'sm otion to dismiss. TheClerk is directed to send copiesofthismem orandllm opinion and theaccompanying orderto the plaintiff and al1counselofrecord. DATED :This +> day ofFebnzary,2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 8
]]>
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.
