United States District Court, District of Columbia
BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge
Cosmin Dumitrescu has brought a breach of contract action
against defendant DynCorp International, LLC. Plaintiff is a
Romanian citizen who was a contract employee of DynCorp, a
government contractor performing work in Afghanistan. He
alleges that defendant breached an implied contract with him
to refrain from employment discrimination after it terminated
his employment in response to his reports of sexual
harassment. Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 6]. Defendant has moved to
dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to
state a claim. Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl., or in the
Alternative, Transfer [Dkt. # 8] (“Def.'s
Mot.”) at 1. Because the Court finds that it lacks
personal jurisdiction over defendant and that venue is not
proper in this district, it will transfer the action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
alleges that defendant had a contract with the State
Department to provide certain services in Afghanistan. Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. While plaintiff does not
specifically allege the exact requirements of DynCorp's
contract with the State Department, he alleges that he worked
for defendant at the Kunduz Regional Training Center and
Kabul Gibson Training Center in Afghanistan from March 2006
until his termination on July 8, 2015. Am. Compl.
¶¶ 7-8, 10.According to plaintiff, beginning around
April 2015, plaintiff's direct supervisor attempted to
pursue a sexual relationship with plaintiff's female
coworker. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges that when
he voiced his objections to these sexual advances, the
supervisor began to “engage in a campaign of
retaliation and harassment against” him. Id.
¶¶ 11-13. Plaintiff claims that ultimately, he was
terminated on July 8, 2015 in retaliation for objecting to
the harassment of his co-worker. Id. ¶ 15.
filed this lawsuit on August 17, 2016, alleging that
defendant retaliated against him in violation of Title VII,
and that it breached an implied contract with him to comply
with United States anti-discrimination laws in its
performance of its contract with the State Department. Compl.
[Dkt. # 1].
December 19, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which
dropped the Title VII claim but retained the breach of
implied contract claim. Am. Compl. Plaintiff alleges that
even though he “had no express contract with Defendant,
” since DynCorp is a U.S. government contractor, it was
bound by an implied contract with plaintiff to comply with
Executive Order 11246, which prohibits government contractors
from engaging in employment discrimination. Am. Compl.
¶¶ 22-23. The amended complaint alleged a breach of
that implied contract. Id. ¶¶ 21-26.
December 29, 2016, defendant filed its motion to dismiss.
Def.'s Mot. Plaintiff opposed the motion on January 12,
2017, Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Opp. to Def.'s
Mot. [Dkt. # 9] (“Pl.'s Opp.”), and defendant
filed a reply on January 19, 2017. Reply in Supp. of
Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 10] (“Def.'s Reply”).
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal
jurisdiction over each defendant. Crane v. N.Y.
Zoological Soc'y, 894 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C. Cir.
1990). In order to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, the “plaintiff must make a prima
facie showing of the pertinent jurisdictional facts.”
First Chi. Int'l v. United Exch. Co., 836 F.2d
1375, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1988). To establish that personal
jurisdiction exists, the “plaintiff must allege
specific acts connecting the defendant with the forum.”
In re Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG Litig., 590
F.Supp.2d 94, 97-98 (D.D.C. 2008), citing Second
Amendment Found. v. U.S. Conference of Mayors, 274 F.3d
521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2001). A plaintiff “cannot rely on
conclusory allegations” to establish personal
jurisdiction. Atlantigas Corp. v. Nisource, Inc.,
290 F.Supp.2d 34, 42 (D.D.C. 2003).
considering a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the court accepts the
plaintiff's well-pled factual allegations regarding venue
as true, draws all reasonable inferences from those
allegations in the plaintiff's favor, and resolves any
factual conflicts in the plaintiff's favor.”
Pendleton v. Mukasey, 552 F.Supp.2d 14, 17 (D.D.C.
2008), quoting Darby v. U.S. Dep't of Energy,
231 F.Supp.2d 274, 276-77 (D.D.C. 2002). The court may
consider material outside of the pleadings. Artis v.
Greenspan, 223 F.Supp.2d 149, 152 (D.D.C. 2002), citing
Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n.4 (1947).
“Because it is the plaintiff's obligation to
institute the action in a permissible forum, the plaintiff
usually bears the burden of establishing that venue is
proper.” Freeman v. Fallin, 254 F.Supp.2d 52,
56 (D.D.C. 2003). “Unless there are pertinent factual
disputes to resolve, a challenge to venue presents a pure
question of law.” Williams v. GEICO Corp., 792
F.Supp.2d 58, 62 (D.D.C. 2011).
This Court Lacks Personal ...