ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
TOMSKIPETSKI5
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-380
Plaintiff
v.
STUDSPERSECOND
Defendant
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
I have decided to dismiss this case on motion of the defendant for the reasons that follow.
BACKGROUND
This is a summary of the alleged facts. The plaintiff, Mr. Tomskipetski5, complained about the “toxic”
behavior of a coworker in StudsPerSecond, a delivery company operating in Ridgeway. The complaint was sent
to the company’s “Office of Risk Management”. Upon investigation, the Office directed one of the subjects of
the plaintiff’s complaint to write an apology letter to the plaintiff. That subject resigned before an apology letter
was written. For unknown reasons, the plaintiff was soon placed on administrative leave in the company for a
period of time. The plaintiff was again placed on administrative leave for a second time, and then fired while the
case currently before me was ongoing.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has committed multiple tortious acts. These include Breach of
Contract (for allowing the subject who was instructed to write the apology letter to resign, thereby violating the
“handbook”), Civil Conspiracy (for the company administration’s actions in conspiring to (and eventually)
suspending and terminating the plaintiff for publishing a document not covered under a non-disclosure
agreement), Negligence per se (for allowing the subject instructed to write the apology letter to resign before the
apology letter was written contrary to an alleged “duty of care”), Negligence (for sanctioning the plaintiff when
he spoke publicly about the company’s tortious actions and “allow[ing] harassment [to] be left unpunished”),
and Tortious Inference (due to the company’s actions causing the plaintiff to be demoted in rank from his
position in the Ridgeway Parks Service).
ANALYSIS
The defendant asserts in their motion to dismiss that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim. I must agree.
The most striking observation to me is that the plaintiff has never identified any clause in the “handbook” which
suggests anything that might preclude the company from “allowing” the subject instructed to write the apology
from resigning. Moreover, it is not clear how this “handbook” is tantamount to an employee-employer contract,
and further, I do not see how StudsPerSecond could have prevented the subject instructed to write the apology
letter to resign. I cannot see any mechanism by which StudsPerSecond could have stopped that subject’s
resignation, and even if there was such a mechanism, the plaintiff has failed to show why there was a
contractual obligation to do so. It is not enough to simply assert in a complaint that a contract or duty of care is
violated; more specificity is expected, and in fact, required. This precludes the plaintiff’s claims on Breach of
Contract and Negligence per se.
With regard to the Civil Conspiracy and Negligence allegations, StudsPerSecond as a privately held
company is entitled to maintain their own employment terms, including if they wish to practice “at-will
employment”. Unless precluded by contractual terms, the company was free to terminate the plaintiff for
virtually any reason of their choosing. No such contractual terms were identified in the complaint, and so the
torts of Civil Conspiracy and Negligence cannot survive in this case.
Finally, with respect to the claim on Tortious Inference, because the plaintiff has failed to allege facts to
show that any of the defendant’s actions were unlawful as discussed above, this claim must be dismissed in turn.
I will not go so far as to say that the case is “vexatious in nature”, as the defendant suggests. I accept that
the existence of the parallel lawsuit against the subject who was ordered to write the apology letter being heard
by my colleague, Hon. insertfailure, is not inappropriate in itself. The claims are not identical.
CONCLUSION
The defendant submits that this case should be dismissed with prejudice, specifically. The complaint put
forth by the plaintiff is far from stating facially valid claims, and I am not persuaded by the plaintiff’s
suggestion that this ruling will allow “employers to harass their employees”. Consequently, this matter will be
dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 28th day of May, 2022.
/s/ frostbleed
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
