Victor Denis V Unisys Llc

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

In Case No. 3:25-cv-1845 (RAR), the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Defendant Unisys, LLC's Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on March 5, 2026. Plaintiff Victor Denis, who was terminated in May 2025, alleged breach of an employment contract with Pinnacle Group, LLC and Unisys LLC. The Court found insufficient factual allegations to establish a contract between Unisys and Denis, dismissing both breach of contract and implied covenant claims without prejudice. Denis was given until March 26, 2026 to file an amended complaint, but the current iteration lacks necessary facts to support claims against Unisys.

Transaction Type

An 18-month employment agreement between Plaintiff Victor Denis and Pinnacle Group, Inc., for Denis to provide professional services as a Network Engineer to Defendant Unisys LLC.

Issues

  • The court dismissed the breach of contract claim against Unisys, LLC because the plaintiff did not allege the existence of a contract between himself and Unisys. Under Connecticut law, a breach of contract claim requires the formation of an agreement, performance, breach, and damages. The plaintiff's complaint only referenced an agreement with Pinnacle Group, not Unisys, and provided insufficient facts to establish privity or a contractual relationship with Unisys.
  • The plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was also dismissed. Since the implied covenant is derived from a contract and the court found no basis for a contract between the plaintiff and Unisys, the covenant claim could not be sustained. The court emphasized that the acts alleged must have been taken in bad faith to breach the covenant, but the lack of a valid contract rendered the claim invalid.

Holdings

  • The court granted Defendant Unisys' Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that Plaintiff failed to plead the existence of a contract between himself and Unisys. As a result, both the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims were dismissed without prejudice.
  • The court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, providing Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, an opportunity to file a first amended complaint by March 26, 2026. The Court emphasized that the amended complaint must not incorporate the original Complaint by reference.

Remedies

  • Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint, with the requirement to file a first amended complaint on or before March 26, 2026. The amended complaint must be filed anew and cannot incorporate the original by reference.
  • The Court grants Defendant Unisys' Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff is allowed to file an amended complaint by March 26, 2026.

Legal Principles

The court held that under Connecticut law, a breach of contract claim requires privity between the parties. Plaintiff's claims against Unisys failed because there was no direct employment agreement between Plaintiff and Unisys. The court rejected alternative theories (joint employer and third-party beneficiary) as insufficient to establish privity.

Precedent Name

  • Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC
  • Sampson v. MediSys Health Network, Inc.
  • De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
  • Uddoh v. United Healthcare
  • Samuels v. Air Transp. Local 504
  • Lerman v. Bd. of Elections
  • Fink v. Time Warner Cable
  • Gateway Co. v. DiNoia

Cited Statute

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Judge Name

Robert Richardson

Passage Text

  • Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dkt. #21, is GRANTED on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling.
  • Defendant Unisys argues in its Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff fails to plead the existence of a contract between Unisys and Plaintiff, and thus Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing must fail as a matter of law.
  • The Court has already addressed whether or not Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to create a reasonable inference that Unisys was a direct party to the employment agreement, and found that Plaintiff has failed to do so. In the same vein, there are insufficient facts in the Complaint suggesting Unisys was an intended beneficiary of the employment agreement.