Winckowski v. Human Interest, Inc.

Background

Anthony Winckowski sued Human Interest, Inc. He alleged that Human Interest engaged in questionable and illegal pricing, deceived or defrauded customers, and misrepresented the nature of his job duties and responsibilities. He alleged that these events were connected to his termination and asserted a retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5, along with two claims that he acknowledged were derivative claims.

Motion to Dismiss

Human Interest moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The court held that Winckowski’s allegations sounded in fraud and therefore had to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). That rule requires a complaint to describe the circumstances of alleged fraud with enough specificity to give the defendant notice of the particular misconduct.

The court found that Winckowski provided no details about the alleged fraudulent conduct and therefore did not satisfy Rule 9(b). After disregarding those insufficiently pleaded allegations, the remaining allegations did not plausibly establish that Winckowski engaged in protected activity, an element of his California Labor Code section 1102.5 retaliation claim. Because that claim was not adequately pleaded, the court held that the second and third, derivative claims could not proceed.

Ruling

Judge Donato granted Human Interest’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. The court allowed Winckowski to file an amended complaint by October 21, 2022, and stated that no new claims or defendants could be added without the court’s express authorization.

Summons Issue

The docket showed that Winckowski had not filed a proposed summons, so the Clerk’s Office had not issued one to Human Interest. Nevertheless, Winckowski filed a proof of service attaching a summons bearing an electronic signature for the Clerk or Deputy Clerk and dated March 18, 2022. The court directed Winckowski’s attorney, Stephen R. Jaffe, to file a declaration by October 6, 2022, explaining the discrepancy and how he obtained the summons bearing the Clerk’s Office signature.