George Manciu, Jr. v. Phoenix Police Department, et al.

Opinion

WO

George Manciu, Jr., No. CV-25-04394-PHX-KML

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Phoenix Police Department, et al.,

Defendants. On April 21, 2026, defendant Tyler Kipper and Vernon Brink filed a motion to dismiss count three of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (Doc. 18.) Count three is a claim for intentional interference with plaintiff’s employment relationship. According to the motion to dismiss, Kipper and Brink were acting within the scope of their authority when performing the acts supporting count three. If that is accurate, count three is not viable. See Barrow v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 761 P.2d 145, 152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988) (management representatives acting within scope of their authority cannot be liable for interfering with employment contract). The opposition was due May 5, 2026, but no opposition was filed. Local Rule 7.2(i) allows the court to summarily grant a motion when no opposition is filed. Based on the seemingly meritorious arguments in the motion and plaintiff’s failure to respond, the motion is summarily granted. / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Count three against defendants Tyler Kipper and Vernon Brink is DISMISSED. Dated this 12th day of May, 2026. AJ 2 fs , WW pda M. VA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham United States District Judge

-2-