Cynthia Harmon v. DynCorp International, Inc. , 624 F. App'x 104 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1248
CYNTHIA HARMON; FRAZIER SHACK; YVETTA HORSFORD SMITH;
SHONDALE ALFORD; MELVIN RILEY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, INC., a/k/a DynCorp International
LLC, d/b/a DynCorp International FZ-LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01597-LMB-TRJ)
Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott J. Bloch, John Carl Francesco Vinci, LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT
J. BLOCH, PA, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jason
Branciforte, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs Cynthia Harmon, Frazier Shack, Yvetta Horsford
Smith, Shondale Alford, and Melvin Riley appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on their breach-of-contract,
discrimination, and related claims against DynCorp
International, Inc. Plaintiffs also appeal a separate order
dismissing without prejudice their qui tam claim under the False
Claims Act. Finding no error, we affirm.
The district court correctly held that Plaintiffs’
complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support an alter
ego theory of liability against DynCorp. Plaintiffs alleged
various acts of misconduct by two businesses that formerly
employed them, but the complaint offered only vague and
conclusory allegations imputing these acts to DynCorp.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs failed to state a claim of alter ego
liability against DynCorp. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009). Moreover, because DynCorp was the sole party
Defendant, the district court did not err in dismissing the
complaint in its entirety.
We further conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion by dismissing Plaintiffs’ False Claims Act claim
or denying leave to file a fifth complaint after the first four
proved unsuccessful. We therefore affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3