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.

KACLUDIS v. GTE SPRINT COMMUNS. CORP.

September 24, 1992

DEAN S. KACLUDIS, Plaintiff,
v.
GTE SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAMUEL CONTI

 I. INTRODUCTION

 Three motions are before the court. Plaintiff Dean S. Kacludis ("Kacludis") moves for remand to state court for failure to plead jurisdiction adequately. Defendants GTE Sprint Communications Corp., Sprint/United Management Company, and Mohammed Z. Malik ("Defendants") in turn seek leave to amend their notice of removal to cure the alleged defect. In addition, Defendants move to dismiss the third through ninth causes of action for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

 II. FACTS1

 The underlying dispute in this case arises out of the termination of Kacludis' twenty-three year employment at Sprint. *fn2" Defendant Mohammed Malik was Kacludis' immediate supervisor at Sprint. Kacludis' complaint alleges that, in retaliation for complaints concerning Malik's management style, he was wrongfully discharged. More specifically, Kacludis alleges that in February of 1989 he "exercised Sprint's 'open door' policy to address certain complaints he had received from other employees about Malik's management style. Sprint employees assured Plaintiff that he would suffer no retaliation for exercising the 'open door' policy." Opposition at 2.

 In October of 1990, Malik told Kacludis that a pending reorganization might eliminate Kacludis' job, and that in such event Malik would find Kacludis another job at Sprint. In late 1990 and early 1991, Kacludis interviewed in Kansas City with the Budget Controls Group of Sprint. In February of 1991, the manager of that group "told Kacludis that someone within Sprint had informed the group that Plaintiff was 'unavailable' to take the positions for which he had interviewed, and thus the positions were offered to other candidates." Opposition at 3. Kacludis was subsequently passed over for another position in the same group.

 On February 1, 1991, Malik wrote Kacludis to inform him that his position was, in fact, being eliminated effective April 5, 1991, and assuring him that Sprint would try to find another position for him within the company.

 Between February 1 and April 5, the manager of the Installation group in the Engineering and Construction department informed both Malik and Kacludis that there was a opening in the group, and requested that Kacludis transfer into it. Malik refused to allow the transfer, despite an established policy and practice of transferring employees whose jobs were eliminated to other Sprint positions.

 Kacludis also alleges that he repeatedly informed Malik of his willingness to take a reduction in grade and/or salary in order to remain employed.

 On April 5, 1991, Sprint terminated Kacludis, and eliminated his position. This was the only position eliminated at that time, and on August 5, 1991, the position was reopened. Malik refused to consider Kacludis for his former position, instead filling it with a transfer from another department within Sprint.

 Kacludis applied for 38 separate positions within Sprint once he learned his employment was to be terminated, none of which were offered to him. Throughout his employment, Kacludis received only satisfactory or above satisfactory performance appraisals.

 On April 3, 1992, Kacludis filed suit in California superior court against Sprint and Malik. The suit alleges the following causes of action:

 1. Breach of Contract (against Sprint only).

 2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (against Sprint only).

 3. Intentional Misrepresentation.

 4. Negligent Misrepresentation.

 5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count One, during employment).

 6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count Two, post-employment).

 7. Slander Per SE.

 8. Intentional Interference With Prospective ...


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.