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

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

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

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Phoenix Police Department, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On April 21, 2026, defendant Tyler Kipper and Vernon Brink filed a motion to 16 dismiss count three of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (Doc. 18.) Count three is a 17 claim for intentional interference with plaintiff’s employment relationship. According to 18 the motion to dismiss, Kipper and Brink were acting within the scope of their authority 19 when performing the acts supporting count three. If that is accurate, count three is not 20 viable. See Barrow v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 761 P.2d 145, 152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988) 21 (management representatives acting within scope of their authority cannot be liable for 22 interfering with employment contract). The opposition was due May 5, 2026, but no 23 opposition was filed. Local Rule 7.2(i) allows the court to summarily grant a motion when 24 no opposition is filed. Based on the seemingly meritorious arguments in the motion and 25 plaintiff’s failure to respond, the motion is summarily granted. 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Count three 3 || against defendants Tyler Kipper and Vernon Brink is DISMISSED. 4 Dated this 12th day of May, 2026. 5 6 AJ 2 fs , WW pda M. VA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-