Briggman et al v. Nexus Services Inc. et al, No. 5:2018cv00047 - Document 31 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 12/11/2018. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN T H E U N ITED STATE S D IST M CT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STE RN D IST M CT O F W R GIN IA H ARM SO N BU RG D IW SION CLERKS OFFtCE U ATROANO.S.DIST. COUR-C KE,VA FILED 0EC 1j 2gyj JU BY; c. sy 27R1 % LFRI . ; DAW D B.BRIG GM AN ,etal., Plaintiffsy CivilAction N o.5:18-cv-00047 By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld N EX US SE RW CE S IN C.,etal. ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. M EM O RAN D U M O PIN ION Tlzism attercom esbeforethecourton plainéffsD avid B.Briggm an,Tania Cortes, and mchardW .Nagel's(collecévely,TTlaintiffs7')SecondModon forLeaveto Amend Complaint(theTTsecond Modon'),ECF No.23.Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,the SecondM otionwillbeDEN IED withoutprejui ceinsofarasPlaintiffsseek to add state m aliciousprosecution clnims,DEN IED with prejudiceinsofatasPbindffsseek to add state cbim sbased on Bovrm an v.StateBank ofK e sville,229 Va.534,331 S.E.2d 797 (1985),and GRANTED insofarasPlaindffsseek to add federalclaimsunder18U.S.C. jj2701and2707. 1. Briggman et al v. Nexus Services Inc. et al Background Doc. 31 PlaintiffsareformeremployeesofNexusSerdces,lnc.(<fNexus').Pl/intiffs originally broughtstlitagznstN exus,M ichaelPaulD onovan,the CEO ofN exus,and Erik G.Schneider,theChiefm sk ManagementOfficerofNexus(collectivelywithNexusand Dockets.Justia.com Donovan,fr efendants'),forviolationsoffedezalandstatewiretappingstatutes.Compl., ECFNo.1,!!23-42. Subsequently,PlaintiffsflledaMoéonforLeavetoFileanAmendedComplainttthe KfFitstM otion'l,ECF No.18.Overamonthlater,afterD efendantsopposed theFirst M otion,Plaintiffsflled a M otion to W ithdraw FirstM otion forLeaveto FileA m ended Complaint(thefTMotion toW ithdraw'),ECF No.22.Simtlltaneouslyw1t.1:theM oéon to W ithdraw,Plainéffsfied the Second M otion.l Plainéffs'proposedamendedcomplaintttheTfAmended Complaint''or<<Am. Compl.'')containstencounts:(1)anexisdngclaim forunlawfulintercepdonofotalandwire communicationsunder18U.S.C.jj2511and25209(2)anexise gclnim forunlawful interception,discloskzre,oruseoforalcommunicadonsunderVizginiaCodejj19.2-62 and-69;(3)anew clqim forunlawfulaccessandpzocurementofstoredcommunicaéons under18U.S.C.jj2701and 2707 ttheCfNew FederalClnims7);(4)anew clnim forwrongful tetmination/constructivedischarge/hostileworkplace(theTfBowmanC1nim');and(5)(10)new claimsforcommonlaw maliciousptosecudonttheftMaliciousPtosecution Clnims7). DefendantsarguethattheywillbeunfairlyprejudicedifthecolzrtgrantstheSecond M otion.D efendantsalso contend thatthe courtshould deny the Second M odon asthe Bowm an Cllim and the M aliciousProsecudon Clnim sare f'utile.D efendantsdo not, however,argue thattheN ew FederalCllim sare futile. 1Given thatthecourtisrllling on the Second M odon,the FirstM oéon and the M oéon to W ithdraw willbe DEN IED as m oot. 2 II. Second M otion to Am end Plaintiffsdo notsatisfy the Hm ing zequirem entsofFederalRule ofCivilProcedtzre 15(a)(1),and thereforemayonlyamended tçwith v' ith opposingparty'swritten consentozthe court'sleave.''Fed.R.Civ.P.15(a)(2).Nonetheless,Tfgtjhecourtshouldfreelygiveleave whenjusticesorequires.''1d.TheFourthCircuithasffinterpretedRule15(a)toprovidethat Tleavetoamendapleadingshouldbedeniedonlywhen theamendmentwouldbeprejudicial to theopposing party,therehasbeen bad faith on thepartofthem oving party,orthe amendmentwould havebeen f' tztile.''?Laberv.Harve ,438F.3d 404,426(4th Cir.2006)(en banc)(quotinglohnsonv.OroweatFoodsCo.,785F.2d503,509(4thCir.1986)). A. Prejudice In theamendmentcontext,fKptejudice''meansdfunduedifhcultyin prosecutinga lawsuitasaresultofa changeoftacécsortheorieson the partoftheothetpartp''Petetsv. BankofAm.,N.A.,No.3:14-cv-513,2015W L 269424,at*3 (E.D.Va.Jan.21,2015) (quodngLundyv.AdamarofN. J.,lnc.,34F.3d1173,1189n.8(3dCit.1994)). Defendants'prejudiceargumentstaketwo forms.Fitst,Defendantscomplain that ffgolftheproposed eleven (11)causesofaction in the Amended Complaint,eigh .t(8)areon behalfofBriggman aloneand one(1)isbroughtbyBriggman and Cortes(butnotNagel); onlytwo (2)cl/imsareptzrsued byallthreePlaintiffscollecévely.''Defs.'Opp.P1s.'Mot. Withdzaw Mot.LeaveFileAm.Compl.ttheTfopposidon'?orç<Opp.''),ECF No.24,at7. Defendantsneverexplain whythepartystructtzreamountsto prejuclicesufûcientto deny the Second M otion,however.N um erouscom plex caseshaveparty structuzesatleastas complicated;add in counterclnim s,third-party clnim s,and intem leader,and theProposed Am ended Com plaintlookssim plein com parison. Defendantsalsocomplain thattheProposedAmepded Complaintfftransformgs) Plainéffs'case from a straightforward wiretapping case consisting offotzrcountsto an eleven-countcom plzntim plicating num ezousunzelated state and federallawsand factual circum stances.''Id. Thatrnightbethecase,andthatnnightconsdmteprejudiceifthiscaseweredeepin the throesofdiscoverp ButPlaintiffsrepresentthatdiscovery hasyetto begin.Indeed, Plainéffs'FirstM otion wasflled lessthan a m onth afterD efendantsanswered the Com plaint.The couttfindsthatadding additionalclnim stlnisearlyin the case doesnot zmountto prejudice. B. M alicious Prosecution Thepatties'briefsdonotdiscussathresholdquestion:whethetthecourthassubjectmatterjuzisdicéontoentenaintheMaliciousProsecuéonClnims.Ifthecotuthasconcerns thatsubject-matterjtzrisdiction doesnotexistoverclnims,thecouzthasadutyto zaise jurisdicéonsuas onte.SeeBricltwoodContractorsInc.v.DatanetEn ' Inc.,369F.3d 385,390(4thCir.2004)rfgq uestionsofsubject-matterjurisdicdonmayberaisedatany pointdtzringtheproceedingsandmay(or,moreprecisely,must)beraisedsuas ontebythe colzrt-'). Section 1367 allowsthecourtto exercisesupplementaljurisdicdon ovezstate-law fTcbimsthataresorelated to theclnimsin theactionwithin such odginaljlptisdicdon that theyform partofthesamecaseorcontroversp''28U.S.C.j1367(a).Thetestfor 4 deterrnining ifthe state-law cbim sd<fozm paztofthe sam e caseor controversy''isthe fam iliartestfrom U rzited M ineW ozkersofA m eêicav.Gibbs;ffl' he state and federalcbim s mustderivefrom acommon nucleusofoperativefact.''383 U.S.715,725(1966)9seealso Axellohnson,Inc.v.CarrollCarolina011Co.,145F.3d660,662(4t.hCir.1998)(applying GibbstoSection 1367). The ffcom m on nucleusofoperaéve fact'?l'ubric reqlliresm ore than dtsuperficial facttmloverlap':between the fedezaland state clnim s.Shavitzv.Guilford Ctp Bd.ofEduc., 100F.App'x146,150(4thCir.2004)@ercuriam).Instead,couttsffmustdigdeeperand deternninewhetherthe state and fedetalclaim shavean essenéalelem entofproofin com m on.''Schallerv.G en.D nam icsCor .,N o.1:13-cv-658,2013W L 5837666,at*3 (E.D.Va.Oct.28,2013).Thisrequiresthatboth thefedetaland thestateclnimsTdrevolve aroundacenttalfactpattern.''W hitev.CountyofNewberry,S.C.,985F.2d168,172(4th Cir.1993). TheM aliciousProsecudon Clnim saze state clnim s.SeeThom asv.Lam an ue,986 F. Supp.336,337-38(W.D.Va.1997).Thepartiesarenotdiverse.SeeAm.Compl.1J15-11. Sincecom pletediversity doesnotexistbetween the parties,Plainéffsrely on 28 U.S.C. j1367,thesupplementalj'prisdicéonstatute,toestablishjurisdicdonovertheMalicious Prosecuéon Clnims.Seeid-,!J3(involcingSection 1367). A fterreviewing theAm ended Com plaint,the courtholdsthattheM alicious Prosecution Cllim sdo notarise outofthe sam ecom m on nucleusofoperadve factsasthe federalclnim s.The federalclnim sinvolvethealleged Z egalinterception ofPbintiffs' com m unicaéons.The datethatN exusbegan the recordingsisunclearfrom the faceofthe Am ended Com plaint,butthelastzecording alleged appeazsto havebeen m adeon April14, 2017.1d.jr18. By contrast,the alleged m aliciousprosecudonsbegan on Aplil24,2017- ten days laterand afterBriggm an had resigned- with Schneiderflling a ctim inalcom plaintalleging pettylazcenyofpapeztowelsandan electticpowersttipftom Nexus'ofhces.idz.!42.From June5,2017through September6,2017,Schneideralso ftledcomputerttespassand com puterharassm entcrim inalcom plaints,butthose chargesdid notarise outofthe allegedlyinterceptedcommunicationsunderpinning thefederalclnims.ld.!! 45-53. Thecourtfailsto see a com m on nucleusofoperative factsbetween the fedezalcllim s and the M aliciousProsecution Clnim s.Thefactualquestion undem inning the federalclnim s iswhetherDefendants'fintentionallyinterceptged),endeavorged)to intercept,orprocutegd) any otherpetson to interceptorendeavorto intercept,anywire,oral,orelecttonic communication.''DIRECTV Inc.v.Nicholas,403F.3d223,225 (4th Cir.2005)(citing 18 U.S.C.j2511(a)(1)).ThefactazalquestionunderpinningtheMaliciousProsecudonCllimsis whetherD efendantsm aliciously instittzted crirninalcom plnintsagninstBriggm an without probablecause.Hudson v.Lanier,255Va.330,333,497S.E.2d 471,473 (1998). Thereisno obviousintersecéon offactsbetween the two.Thereisno com m on elem entofproof.N ordo theclnim srevolvearound a comm on factpattetn.To besure, Plaindffsallege thatthebot. h fedezalclnim sand M aliciousProsecudon Clnim sarisefrom a concerted Nexuseffoztto pezsecuteBrkgman becauseofKrlliseffortstoexposeNexus' m alfeasanceand seek unemploymentcompensadon.''Am.Compl.!56.Butthecourtfmds thisconnection fartoo tangenéalto supportsupplementaljurisdicéon. 6 BecausetheM aliciousProsecuéon Clnim sdo notariseoutofa com m on nucleusof operativefactwith thefedezalclnims,thecourtcannotexezcisesupplementaljurisdicdon overthem.Thecourt* 11disnaisstheseclnimswithoutprejudicesoPlaintiffsmayreflle them in state coutt. C. Bow m an Claim In therem aining new cl/im ,Plaintiffsallege thatD efendantseffected a constructive clischargeofPlaintiffsbyvioladngtheVitginiaW agePaymentAct,Va.Codej40.1-29(the fV agePaymentAct7>),theVirginiaW iretapAct,Va.Codejj19.2-62through19.2-69tthe dV iretap Act77),and thefederalElectrorticCommunicaéonsPrivacyAct,8U.S.C.jj251120 (the<<ECPA77).2Defendantsclnim thattheBowman Clqim isfutile.Thecourtagrees. 1. Bow m an Vizginiaisan at-willstate:ffhvjhen theintended duration ofacontractforthe rendiéon ofservicescannotbe deternained by fairinference from theterm softhecontract, then eitherpartyisordinarily atliberty to te= inate the contractatwill,upon giving the otherpartyreasonable noéce.''LawrenceCh slerPlm outh Cor .v.Brooks,251 Va.94, 97,465S.E.2d806,808(1996). 2A briefasideaboutsubject-mat lerjurisdicdonisprtzdent.ThecourtdismissedtheMaliciousPzosecudonClnimsfor lackofsubject-matterjtuisdicdon.ThecourtdeclinestodothesamewiththeBowmanClaim.'FheB-owmanClnim,asit relatesto alleged violaûonsoftheW iretap A ctand ECPA,arisesoutofthe sam e com m on nucleusofopetaévefactas the federalcbim s,asthe lattercbim salso ariseoutofthe ECPA.Itism uch lessclearthattheBowman Claim ,insofaras itarisesoutofalleged violadonsoftheW agePaym entA ct,arisesoutofthe sam e com m on nucleusofoperadvefact. ButPlainéffsplead a singleBowm an Cbim :D efendantscreated an intolerablework environm entby violati ng tlze ECPA,theW iretap Act,and f lzeW agePaym entAct.P1s.'Reply Supp.Second M ot.LeaveAm .Com pl.,ECF N o.29,at 5CplaindffsarguethatthecllmulativeeffectofNexus'malfeasanceagainstthePlaindffs- whetherindicadveof Bowm an-woMhy public policy statm esorotherwise--created circum stancesofan intolerablenatarewhich leftthe Plaindffsnochoicebuttoresign....'').Forjurisdicdonalpumoses,thecouz'tneednotparseouttheindividual com ponentsofthe Bowman Clnim .Instead,itsuffcesto say thatthereisa comm on elem entofproofbetween tlze federalclqim sand theBowm an Cbim :D efendantsallegedly violated theECPA.Thatissuffcientfor the couztto exercisesupplementaljurisclicéonoveztheBowmanClqim underSecdon 1367.Schaller,2013WL 5837666,at*3. 7 InBowmanv.StateBankofKesville,229Va.534,331S.E.2d801(1985),the Suprem e CourtofVirginiarecognized a narrow ,public-policy based ekceptbn to thegenezal at-willrtzle.Theemployee'sdischargemustbeTfbased onviolaéonsof(statutoryjpublic policy by the defendants.''J-dsat540,331S.E.2d at801.TheBowm an exception isnarrom how ever. W hilevirtually every statazte expressa publicpolicy ofsom e sort,we continue to consider this exception to be a Tfnarrow'' excepdon and to hold that Tfterrnination ofan em ployee in violation ofthe public policy underlying any one gstat-utejdoesnotautomatically giveriseto acommon law cause ofaction forwrongfuldischarge.'' Rowanv.TractorSu 1 Co.,263Va.209,213,559S.E.2d709,711(2002)(alterationin original)(quotingC# ofVirginiaBeachv.Harris,259Va.220,232,523S.E.2d 239,245 (2000)). TheSuprem e CourtofVitginia hasrecognized three scenariosin wllich aBow m an excepéon willapply:(1)whereffan employerviolatedapolicyenabling theexerciseofan employee'sstamtodlycreatedright'';(2)whereffthepublicpolicyviolatedbytheemployer wasexplicitly expressed in the stattzte and the em ployeewasclearly am em berofthatclassof personsdirectly entitled to theprotecdonenunciated bythepublicpolicf';and (3)f<where thedischargewasbased on the em ployee'srefusalto engage in a cHm inalact.''Id.at213-14, 559 S.E.2d at211. lm portantly,a plaindffm ustidentify aVizginia- and notfedezal- statute that confersrightsordutiesupon laim ozany othersim ilarly sitrated em ployee ofthe defendant. SeeLeverton v.Alliedsi alInc.,991F.Supp.486,490 (E.D .Va.1998)9Dra v.New 8 M arketPoultryprods.,lnc. ,258Va.187,191,518S.E.2d312,314(1999)9Lawrcnce - Chrysler,251 Va.at98-99,465 S.E.2d at809. Recently,theSuprem e CourtofVirginiarehned Bowm an,holding thatthe frterm inaéonitself''mustffviolategthepublicpolicystatedin the''relevantVirgirliastatute. Ftancisv.N at'lAccreditin Com m 'n CareerArts& Scis.Inc.,293 Va.167,174,796 S.E.2d 188,191 (2017))seealsoVas uezv.W holeFoodsMatket Inc.,302F.Supp.3d36,57 (D.D.C.2018)rThegfkancis)courtaccorclinglyframedthequesdonbeforeitaswhethezta viableBowm an cllim in thiscontextwould requirea showing thatthe tetminadon of employmentitselfviolated thestated publicpolicyofptotection health and safety.''(quoting Bowman,293Va.at174,796S.E.2dat191)). In Francis,the plainéffobtoined apzotecdve ordezunderthe Protective Order Stam tesagainsta fellow em ployee afterthe em ployeetfyelled obscenitiesatFrancis,called herdezogatory nam es,and threatened Francis''whileatwork.Francis,293 V a.at170,796 S.E.2d at189.A few daysafterthe fellow em ployeew asserved the protective order,Francis' em ploym entw asterrninated.1. da . Francisraised aBowm an cllim based on violadonsoftheProtective O rderStatm es. TheVirginiaSupremeCourtconcluded thatffgtqheProtecdveOzdezStatutesgrantan individualtherightto seek aprotectiveorder.''Id.at174,796 S.E.2d at191.Accordingly,<<a viable Bowm an claim in thiscontextw ould require a showing thatthetev inadon of em ploym entitselfviolated the stated publicpolicy ofprotecéon ofhealth and safety.''ld. TheFrancisplaindfffailed to satisfy thatshowing.Shedid ffnotallege thather terminadon itself...somehow endangerledjherhealth and safets''nordid Tfsheallegethat 9 (defendantjpreventedhezfzom exezcisingherstattztoryHghtsundertheProtecdveOrder Stataztes.''1d.at174,796 S.E.2d at191-92.lnstead,she m erely alleged thatffshew as term inated because she exercised herrightsundertheProtective O rderStat-utes.''1d.at174, 796S.E.2d at192 (emphasisadded).AsFrancismakesclear,then,aBowman clqim onlylies when the term inaéon itselfviolatestlae publicpolicy expzessed by the applicable stam te. 2. Constructive D ischarge Plaintiffsdo notallege thatthetetvninaéon oftheirem ploym entviolated theterm sof an em ploym entcontract.Therefore,theitcauseofaction arisesoutofBowm an. A dclitionally,Plaintiffsallege thatthey ffwere com pelled to tet-minate theirem ploym entwit.h Nexus''- notthatNexusterrninatedtheitemployment.Am.Compl.!77.lnotherwords, Plaintiffsallege consttazcéve discharge. ffconstrucéve discharge occlzrswhen aplainéff'sresignadon isfin violation ofclear and unequivocalpublic policy oftllisCom m onw ealth thatno person should have to suffer such inclignitiesand thatthe em ployer'sacdonsweredeliberateand created intolerable , worltingconditions.':W nnev.Bitache,No.1:09cv15,2009WL 3672119,at*3(E.D.Va. Nov.3,2009)(quotingPadillav.SilverDiner,63Va.Cir.50,57(2003)). D efendantsdispute whetherthe Suprem e CourtofVitginiawould recognize a construcdve dischargeBowm an clnim .BecausePlainéffs'Bowm an Clnim isa state law clqim ,the couztffhasa duty to apply the opezadve statelaw asw ould thehighestcourtofthe state in wllich thesuitwasbrought'' thatis,Vitgl 'tu'a.Libert'y M ut.lns.Co.v.Triangle Indus.,lnc.,957F.2d 1153,1156(4th Cir.1992).TheSuptemeCourtofVizginiahasneither recognized norrejected constructivedischargeBowman clnims.SeeFalzlknerv.Dillon,92F. 10 Supp.3d493,498(W.D.Va.2015).Accordingly,thecotzrtmustpzedicthow theVirgirzia Suprem e Courtw ould decide theissue.SeeLibertyM ut.,957 F.2d at1156.tfln such circum stances,the state'sinte= ediateappellate courtdecisionsconsdttztethe nextbest incliciaofwhatstatelaw is,although such decisionsm ay be disregard ifthe federalcotutis convinced by otherpersuasive data thatthe highestcourtofthe statew ould decide otherwise.''ld.(intetnalquotaéonsand citatonsomitted). D efendantsurge the courtto follow H airston v.M uld-channelTV Cable Co.,N o. 95-2363,1996W L 119916 (4th Cir.Mar.19,1996)(percuriam),an unpublished Fourth Circuitdecision thatdeclined to extend Bowm an to consttuctive discharge clnim s,apparently becausethecourtftwasclearly concerned with therisk thatfederalcouttswould extend state 1aw beyond any pointrecognized byVirginia'shighestcourt.''Faulkner,92 F.Supp.3d at 498-99. A sD efendantsrecognizein a footnote,however,courtshave spliton whether H aitston should be followed.See O pp.11 n.4;accotd Faulknet,92 F.Supp.3d at499 (collecdngcases).Moreover,Defendantsfailto mendon thatsinceHaitston,ffsipaificant num bersofVirginia ttialcourts- butstillnotVitgm ' 'a'shighestcourt- have recognized constructivedischarge.''Fallllmer,92F.Supp.2dat499.Atthispointin thelitkadon,the courtagreeswith Faulknerand findsthattheSuprem e CourtofVitginiaislikely to recognizea constrtzctive dischargeBowm an claim ,assunning thatallthe otherelem entsofa Bow m an claim are m et. 11 3. Bow m an Claim Analysis PlainéffsbasetheirBowm an Clnim on two Virginia stam tes- theW age Paym entA ct and theW izetap A ct- and theECPA.3PlaindffscannotbasetheirBowm an Clnim son the ECPA,however,becauseitisafederalstatute.See Lawrence Chrysler,251V a.at98-99,465 S.E.2dat809(reqllitingplaindfftoidentifyaK'Vitginiastattzteestablishingapublicpolicf). W ith respectto the alleged W agePaym entA ctvioladons,D efendantsrecognize that undersom e citcmnstances,Virginia courtshave allowed Bowm an cllim sforW age Paym ent Actviolations.See O pp.15 & n.6.D efendantsinstead rely on Vas uez v.W holeFoods M arket,lnc.,302F.Supp.3d 36 (D.D.C.2018),theonlypost-Franciscaserelyingon Francis toadjudicateBowman clnims. Vas uez held thatviolationsoftheW age Paym entA ctdoesnotgiveriseto a Bowm an clqim .Relying on M arv.M alveatm aVitginiaappellate case,V as uez found that fTtheVizginiaW agePaym entA ctdoesnotitselfconferarighton em ployeesto receivepap'' butinstead fffestablishgeslthepublicpolicyoftheCommonwealth astothemannerinwhich employerspaywagesto employees.''?Vas uez,302F.Supp.3d at57 (quoéng Marv. Malveaux,60Va.App.759,771,732S.E.2d733,738 (2012)).TheActffconfersnorighton em ployeesto receivewages;thatrightinstead isrooted in contractlam ''Id.Accordingly,ffif the statutoryrightto seek aprotecéve orderto safeguard one'shealth and safety doesnot reflectapublicpolicy to protectthe exercise ofsuch aright'R- thatis,theholcling of Francis- ffthen stuely them orepassiverightofreceiving earned wage paym entson aregular basis...cannotasam attetofpublicpolicy teceive gteatetptotecdon.''Id.at58. 5Because Plaindffsdo notallege thattheirconstrucdvedischarge arose from theirrefusalto perform illegalacts, Scenazio 3 ofBowm an doesnotapply. 12 The courtfindsVas uezpersuasiveand adoptsitsreasoning.The colzrtholdsthe W agePaym entActdoesnot<Tpzotectg an employee'srexercise'ofherrighttoreceive wages.''Id.Accordingly,itnecessnrily followsthatPlqinéffs'alleged constrtzcdveterminaéon clid notffviolateqapolicyenabling theexerciseofan employee'sstatutorilycreated tight,'?as isnecessaryto establish a Bowm an chim underScenazio 1.Rowan,263V a.at213-14,559 S.E.2d at711.N ordoestheW agePaym entActsetforth an explicitpublic policy necessary toprosecuteaBowman cloim underScenario 2.SeeLd.aAccordingly,Plaindffs'Bowman Clnim ,to the extentitrelieson violaéonsofthe W agePaym entAct,m ustbe disnaissed asa m atteroflaw . Plaintiffs'appealto theW iretap Actissim ilarly flawed.TheW iretap A ctcreatesa dutyto nottointerceptcertain electroniccommunications,seeVa.CodeAnn.j 19.2-62,but Bowm an liability only attachesw hen an em ployerviolatesan em lo ee'sstattztoryt'ights.zl Theonlyrightthatinuresto employeesistherightto fileacivilaction when an employer(or anyoneelsesubjectto theWiretap Act)violatestheWitetap Act.Id.j19.2-69.Thereisno suggestion thatD efendantsinterfered with thatzight,precluding aBow m an cbim under Scenario 1.Indeed,one ofPlaintiffs'originalclnim sisforviolaéonsoftheW iretap Act,and Plaintiffsm akeno suggestion thatD efendantsattempted to interferein theirprosecudon of those clnim s. N ordoesthe courtfind Scenario 2 applies,asthe courtfailsto find a Tfpublicpolicy violated bytheemployer(thatjwasexplicitlyeypressed in thestatazte.':Rowan,263Va.at 4BecausetheWiretapActprescribescrlminalliabilityforviolaéons,seeVa.CodeAnn.j19.2-62,tmderScenalio3,a Bowm an cluim wolzld lie ifthe employer fired an employeeiftheem ployee refused to violatethe W iretap A cton behalf ofthe em ployer.Plaindffsdo notallege thatthisoccurred. 13 213-14,559 S.E.2d at711.To thecontrary,theW iretap Actdoesnotexplicitly expressany publicpolicy,letalone apublicpolicy thatD efendantsviolated. Pllinéffscite a listofcasesthey suggestrecognizethatthe ECPA ffhasbeen recognized aspublicpolicyand shouldberecognizedassuch here.''Opp.8.f<rllheSupreme CotzrtofVirginiahasforthrightlystatedthatVa.Codej19.2-62<isVirginia'sversion'ofthe ECPA.''Glob.Polic Partners LLC v.Yessin,686F.Supp.2d631,637 T .D.Va.2009). Plaindffsconcludethatifthe ECPA ispublicpolicy,then theW itetap A ctshould be considezed publicpolicy forBowm an purposes,aswell. Theproblem isthatthe casesPlainéffsciteneverhold thatthe ECPA isapublic policy,letalone an exptesspublic policy forBowm an pum oses.GlobalPolic Partners LLC v.Y essin m ezely statesthattheECPA fTprohibitsintentionally intercepdng any electronic communicaéon.''ld.Similarly,inBackhautv.A le Inc.,74 F.Supp.3d 1033 (C.D.Cal. 2014),thecourtclidnothavetodeterminewhethertheECPA evinced apublicpolicy becausethedefendant'sonlyargumenton therelevantclnim wasTTthatPlainéffshagdjnot pled viable pzedicate violadonsof'the ECPA.Id.at1051. Finally,in Pie lo v.HillstoneRestaurantGrou ,No.06-5754 (FSI-I),2009W L 3128420O .N.J.Sept.25,2009),thejudgeapparentlyleftthejurytodete= ineiftheECPA and correspondingNewlerseystattzteconstitutedpublicpolicy.Id.at*1 (ffgA)jurytrial com m enced to deteznûnew hetherthe D efendants...wrongfully te= inated Plaindffsin violation ofpubicpolicy.').Previously,thePietrylocouttheld thatdeterminingifavioladon ofpublicpolicy occurredrequitedffprivac'yinterestsgto)bebalanced againsttheemployer's interestsin managing thebusiness.''Pie lov.HillstoneRest.G .,No.06-5754 (FSH), 14 ' 2008WL 6085437,at*6(D.N. J.JùY 25,2008).Nosuchbalancing teqllitem entexistsundez Bow m an and itsprogeny,how evez. Instead,thecourtm ustdeterrnineiftheW iretap Actexpressed an explicitpublic pohcy.Itdoesnot.Therefore,Plainéffscannot,asam atteroflaw,plead aBowm an cl/im based on theW itetap A ct. 111. Conclusion Forthe reasonsstated above,Plaintiffs'Second M odon willbe GRAN TED with respectto theNew FederalClnims,DENIED withoutprejudicewithrespectto the M aliciousProsecution Clqims,andDEN IED with prejudicewithrespectto theBowm an Claim . Entered: /T -//-2-c /Y 4 /*24rZ'M4/.W *-SZ-' M ichael . b Cltief nite StatesDisttiçtltèdge 15
]]>
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.
