Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mattiaccio v. DHA Group, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 12, 2013

Gennaro MATTIACCIO II, Plaintiff,
DHA GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants.

Page 252

Gennaro Mattiaccio, II, Stafford, VA, pro se.

Emily C. Harlan, Nixon Peabody, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Defendants.



Plaintiff Gennaro Mattiaccio filed suit against his former employer DHA Group, Inc., David Hale, and Ami Getu (collectively " Defendants" ), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and accusing the Defendants of defamation in connection with the Plaintiff's termination. Compl., ECF No. [1], ¶¶ 31-64. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for defamation without prejudice, and the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Am. Compl., ECF No. [16]. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's [20] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. In essence, the Plaintiff seeks an order barring the Defendants from responding to a subpoena issued by a Virginia state court in connection with a custody dispute involving the Plaintiff, or otherwise disclosing information regarding certain video files purportedly recovered from the Plaintiff's work laptop. Upon consideration of the pleadings,[1] the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court finds temporary or preliminary injunctive relief is not warranted on the present record. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.


A. Plaintiff's Termination

In relevant part, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was hired as the Lead Proposal Manager for DHA Group in July 2011. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10-11. On two occasions in May 2012, the Plaintiff met with Defendant Ami Getu, the Manager of Human Resources for DHA Group, to discuss " a complaint against personnel at the company." Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. The Plaintiff took issue with, among other things, " [b]eing called at home after hours," " [b]eing called a liar routinely," and " [b]eing told that despite the fact we are winning proposals it is not because of me." Am. Compl. Ex. D (5/3/12 Ltr Pl. to Def. Getu). The afternoon following the

Page 253

second meeting, the Plaintiff alleges he was placed on indefinite administrative leave. Am. Compl. ¶ 22.

On May 30, 2012, DHA Group terminated the Plaintiff's employment. Am. Compl. Ex. E (5/30/12 Termination Ltr). The termination letter, signed by Defendant Getu, indicated that although DHA asserted the right to terminate the Plaintiff without cause, " there [we]re several motiving factors that contributed to this decision, in addition performance issues." Id. at 1. Specifically,

In the attached Preliminary Investigation, and through basic research, it was revealed that you had and have been far less than candid with DHA with respect to important and relevant aspects of your background and experience. Given DHA's client base, the nature of the information, the expectations of candor from you and your legal duties to DHA, it should be obvious to someone of your background why your lack of candor is extraordinarily troubling.
In addition, there are certain inconsistencies with your resume and other data that you created that should have been revealed to DHA. Finally, and importantly, certain files and data found on the DHA laptop that you possessed is inappropriate and contrary to Company policy.

Id. The Plaintiff attached both the termination letter and the preliminary investigation report referenced in the letter to both his original and amended complaints.

The preliminary investigation report referenced in the termination letter (and attached as an exhibit to the Amended Complaint) was addressed to Defendant Getu and dated May 29, 2012. Am. Compl. Ex. F (Preliminary Investigation Report).[2] Though the report itself does not identify its author(s), the Plaintiff implicitly alleges report was provided by a " third party" engaged by DHA Group to conduct a post-employment background check on the Plaintiff. Am. Compl. ¶ 23. Neither the Amended Complaint nor the Plaintiff's pleadings in connection with the present motion offer any additional information regarding the creation of the report, or what additional information or materials were conveyed to human resources.

The report discussed the results of public records searches, which revealed a total of three misdemeanor convictions for (1) disorderly conduct; (2) assault and battery; and (3) misuse of FBI seals. Am. Compl. Ex. F at 1-2. According to the report, the searches also revealed that the Plaintiff had been " arrested/charged with criminal (non-traffic) offenses 11 times" in the state of Virginia in the last ten years, and once by federal authorities. Id. at 1. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.