Beaulac v. All Systems Satellite Distributors, Inc.
1:17-cv-00162
D.N.H.Sep 21, 2017Background
- Beaulac worked for All Systems (director of sales) and resigned in October 2016 after changes to her working conditions; Logiudice was All Systems’ principal.
- After resigning, Beaulac and her fiancé Beattie accepted job offers from Gene’s Electronics (with Beaulac negotiating job security and a job for Beattie).
- Gene’s principals later told the plaintiffs that Logiudice had threatened to stop doing business with Gene’s unless Gene’s terminated the plaintiffs; Gene’s then fired them.
- Beaulac also received a job email from Hughes Communications to her All Systems email; Logiudice allegedly intervened with Hughes and the offer ended.
- Plaintiffs sued All Systems and Logiudice for tortious interference with business relationships (Gene’s and Hughes) and violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (RSA ch. 358-A); defendants moved to dismiss.
- The court considered the amended complaint the operative pleading and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in large part, dismissing only the portion of the Chapter 358-A claim tied to Beaulac’s employment while at All Systems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with Gene’s employment | Plaintiffs allege defendants threatened to cut off business to force Gene’s to fire them, supporting intentional/improper interference | Defendants say at-will employment precludes the claim and conduct was a lawful refusal to deal | Court: at-will status does not bar claim; alleged threats suffice to plead intentional and improper interference — claim survives |
| Tortious interference with Hughes offer | Plaintiffs say Logiudice’s contact with Hughes ended a job opportunity, supporting interference | Defendants say allegations are too meager to show intentional/improper interference | Court: allegations are minimal but adequate to state a claim — claim survives |
| Applicability of NH Consumer Protection Act (RSA ch. 358-A) | Plaintiffs contend defendants’ post-employment conduct (calling Gene’s, contacting Hughes) was unfair/deceptive commerce conduct outside an employment dispute | Defendants contend Chapter 358-A does not cover employment disputes and Donovan bars such claims arising from employment relations | Court: Chapter 358-A claim based on post-employment conduct survives; however, any part of Count V grounded in Beaulac’s employment while at All Systems is dismissed per Donovan |
| Procedural sufficiency of pleadings / motion to dismiss | Plaintiffs requested discovery before dismissal | Defendants argued Rule 12(b)(6) tests pleading sufficiency now | Court: denied request for discovery; applied Rule 12(b)(6) standard and found plaintiffs’ amended complaint plausibly pleaded claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Galvin v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 852 F.3d 146 (1st Cir. 2017) (pleading standard and accepting well-pleaded facts on motion to dismiss)
- In re Curran, 855 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2017) (plausibility requirement for complaints)
- In re Fidelity ERISA Float Litig., 829 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2016) (reasonable inference standard on pleadings)
- Carcia-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2013) (complaint must allege more than rote recitation of elements)
- Singer Asset Fin. Co., LLC v. Wyner, 156 N.H. 468 (N.H. 2007) (elements of tortious interference with economic relationships)
- City of Keene v. Cleaveland, 167 N.H. 731 (N.H. 2015) (improper purpose requirement for interference)
- Donovan v. Digital Equip. Corp., 883 F. Supp. 775 (D.N.H. 1994) (Chapter 358-A not available for claims arising from employment disputes)