Manciu v. Phoenix Police Department et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
George Manciu, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Phoenix Police Department, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04394-PHX-KML
ORDER
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.
/
/
/
Case 2:25-cv-04394-KML Document 21 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
Case 2:25-cv-04394-KML Document 21 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 2