Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Lutfi v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

January 26, 2015

GEORGE LUTFI, Plaintiff,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants

GEORGE LUTFI, Plaintiff, Pro se, Arlington, VA.

For LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, and its subsidiaries, including LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES, INC., whether partially or fully owned, and any of its assigns, or entities similarly named or bundled, Defendant: Nat Peter Calamis, LEAD ATTORNEY, CARR MALONEY PC, Washington, DC.

For FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Defendant: Peter Rolf Maier, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Civil Division, Washington, DC.

Page 365

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 7], the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Federal Aviation Administration [ECF No. 19], and plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 27]. For the reasons discussed below, defendants' motions will be granted, and plaintiff's motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a Virginia resident, Compl. ¶ 7, describes himself as " an Information Technology (IT) specialist with unique skills in the business intelligence area, including data integration and database management," id. ¶ 12. He is a former employee of Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. (" Lockheed" ), see id. ¶ 7, which had entered into a contract with the Federal Aviation Administration (" FAA" ) " under the National Air Space (NAS) Implementation Support Contract (NISC)," id. ¶ 9.[1] Plaintiff identifies his former supervisor as Samir Dhamsania and NISC's program manager as Russell Zub; both of these defendants are Virginia residents. Id. ¶ ¶ 10-11.[2]

According to plaintiff, " [d]efendants . . . made false and defamatory statements"

Page 366

about him by " accusing [him] of defrauding the FAA and Lockheed and causing project delay [for which] Lockheed billed the FAA for its whole team, and/or . . . by publication on [d]efendant's email server that were replicated throughout the internet and by spam emails and videos." Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant, either intentionally or negligently, " republished the false and defamatory statements to other persons who responded relying on the statements . . . with the intent to harm [his] . . . reputation, character, and/or to gain a competitive advantage." Id. In addition, defendants allegedly acted in such a way that plaintiff's " current client and business relationships and . . . prospective clients and business relationships," id. ¶ 23, have been harmed, id. ¶ 24. He demands compensatory and punitive damages, among other relief. Id. at 9 (page number designated by ECF).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

Lockheed filed its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on August 22, 2014 [ECF No. 7]. On August 25, 2014, the Court issued an order [ECF No. 9] directing plaintiff to file an opposition or other response to Lockheed's motion by September 22, 2014. The order warned plaintiff that if he failed to file a timely opposition, the Court would treat Lockheed's motion as conceded. Further, the order directed plaintiff to show cause by September 22, 2014 why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter ...


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.