UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA FLORENTINO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff,
v. LABORATORY CORPORATIONOF AMERICAHOLDINGS, d/b/a LabCorp, CivilActionNo. 13-675 (GK)

Defendant.
MEMORANDUMOPINION Plaintiff Florentino Rodriguez**(~Rodriguez"** or "Plaintiff") brings this action against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings ("LabCorp" or "Defendant") for declaratory judgment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This matter is before the Court on LabCorp's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 16]. Upon consideration of the Motion, Opposition [Dkt. No. 17], and Reply [Dkt. No. 19], the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion isgranted.I . BACKGROUND A. FactualBackground1 Rodriguez was employed by the District of Columbia as an Urban Park Ranger. FAC**~** 6. During his eleven years of employment inthis capacity, he had "anexemplaryrecordwithno history of disciplinary problems or personal involvement with illegaldrugs." FAC**~~** 6, 7. In or about April 2010, Rodriguez was randomly selected to submit a urine sample for drug testing pursuant to the District of Columbia's Mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing Program for Safety-Sensitive Positions ("Drug Testing Program")
. FAC**~** 8;
see 6-B D.C.M.R. § 3901 et seq. Rodriguez's test results were positive for the presence of marijuana metabolites, and he was subsequentlyterminatedfromhisemployment. FAC**~~** 21, 23. Rodriguez does not allege that his test results were inaccurate, orthat he hadnot usedmarijuanapriortoproviding his urine sample. Instead, he alleges that LabCorp, who tested his urine and reported the result, failed to follow governmentmandated procedures in doing so, thereby improperly causing his positiveresulttobereportedtohisemployer. Id.**~~** 9-23. Rodriguez relies on certain provisions in Title 6 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, and the United

1 Except where otherwise noted, the facts set forth herein are takenfrom the FirstAmendedComplaint ("FAC") [Dkt. No. 15] and acceptedas true. -2-States Department of Transportation regulations incorporated therein, which the District of Columbia has adopted in connection with its Drug Testing Program (collectively, "regulations" or "quality control regulations"). See 6-B D.C.M.R. § 3 901 et seq.; 4 9 C.F.R. Part 40. The regulations require a testing laboratory to conduct both an initial screen and a confirmatory test before reporting a drug test as positive. 6-B D.C.M.R. § 3906.4; see also 49 C.F.R. § 40.87. To conduct the initial screen, the laboratory must use an enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique ("EMIT") test. 6-B D.C.M.R. § 3906.4. If the initial screen is positive, the laboratory must then use a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry ("GCMS") test to confirm the positive result and quantify the preciseconcentrationofdrugmetabolites. Id. The regulations set "cutoff concentrations," which determine whether the initial screen and confirmatory test shouldbe reported aspositive. See 49 C.F.R. § 40.87(a). If a test result is below the cutoff, the laboratory must report it
as negative. Id. § 40.87(b)-(c). If a test result is at or above the cutoff concentration, the laboratorymust report it as positive. Id. § 40.87(b)-(c). Inthe case of a marijuana test, the relevant cutoff concentrations are 50 ng/mL for the initial
screenand 15ng/mLfor theconfirmatorytest. Id. § 40.87 (a).

-3-Rodriguez contends that "there is absolutelyno evidenceor information in the report provided to the District of Columbia indicating that he had a positive initial urine screen, i.e.
over 50 ng/mL." FAC**~** 12. Therefore, he argues LabCorpwas not legally permitted to conduct a confirmatory test, or to report his test results aspositiveto theDistrict of Columbia'sHuman ResourcesDepartment. FAC**~~** 13, 14, 21.2 Rodriguez alsoclaims that LabCorp performed the wrong type of testing because it administered a "qualitative test," andnot the test specifiedin 6-BD.C.M.R. § 3906. FAC**~~** 15-16. On thesegrounds, Rodriguez maintains that he "was denied a fair test in compliance with DistrictofColumbiagovernmentprocedures." FAC**~** 17. B. ProceduralBackground On April 19, 2013, Rodriguez filed his original Complaint in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, bringing claims against LabCorp for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract. On May 10, 2013, LabCorp removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446.

2 LabCorp did not report Rodriguez's result directly to the District of Columbia's Human Resources Department. Instead, it first forwarded the results toDr. CharlesMoorefield, a Medical Review Officer ("MRO"), whose responsibility it was to "verify that the testing procedure was conducted properly." FAC**~** 20; see also 49 C.F.R. § 40.123. Rodriguez alleges that Dr. Moorefield failed to properly review LabCorp's testing procedures. FAC**~** 21. However, hehas not namedDr. Moorefield as a defendant inthe case. -4-[Dkt
. No
. 1]
. LabCorp then moved to dismiss Rodriguez's Complaint [Dkt. No. 9], but subsequently withdrew its motion after the parties stipulated to permit Rodriguez to file an amendedcomplaint. [Dkt. No. 13]. On August 2, 2013, Rodriguez filed his FAC, asserting claims against LabCorp for declaratory judgment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See generally FAC [Dkt. No. 15]. The FAC also includes claims against "John Doe" Defendants for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference with businessrelations. FAC**~~** 64-85.3 On August 23, 2013, LabCorp moved to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Dkt
. No. 16]
. On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Opposition. [Dkt. No. 17]
. On September 24, 2013, LabCorpfileditsReply. [Dkt. No. 19].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

3 The "JohnDoes" are describedas employees of LabCorp who were involved in the testing and reporting of Rodriguez's drug test results. See FAC**~** 5. Although Rodriguez identifies one of these individuals in his Opposition as Kamlesh Patel, Pl.'s Opp'n at 3, there is no indication that Rodriguez has attempted to serve Mr. Patel, or any person other than LabCorp, with his complaint. -5-To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

### u.s. 544, 570 (2007)). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probabilityrequirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. A pleading that offers mere "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" will not suffice; nor will "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal punctuation omitted). The factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and to permit the Court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for themisconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556U.S. at 678. "In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached thereto or incorporated therein, and matters of which it may take judicial notice." Stewart v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 471 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). A court may also consider documents of undisputed authenticity that "are referred to in the complaint and are integral to" the

-6-plaintiff's claims. Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958, 965 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citationomitted). The court is required to accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and give a plaintiff "the benefit of all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from such allegations." Kaempe, 367 F.3d at 963 (citation omitted). However, the court neednot accept plaintiff's legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Jacobs v. Vrobel, 724 F.3d 217, 221 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Nor must it accept "inferences drawn by plaintiffs if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint," or by other documents properly considered in connectionwith the motion to dismiss. (citationsomitted)
. III. ANALYSIS Kaempe, 367 F.3d at 963

A. Materials ConsideredinThisMotiontoDismiss In support of itsMotion, LabCorphas submittedexcerpts of the Report it prepared in connection with Rodriguez's test. These excerpts, the authenticity of which Rodriguez does not dispute, include pages labeled "Specimen Test Results," "Specimen Summary," "Initial Test Data Section," and "Confirmation Test Data Section." See Decl. of Robert I. Steiner in Support of LabCorp's Reply ("Steiner Decl."), Ex. A [Dkt. No. 19-1]. Rodriguez refers to these pages repeatedly in his FAC; indeed, theyprovide the sole factual underpinning for -7-his contention that LabCorp failed to comply with the quality control regulations. See FAC**~~** 12, 15, 16, 18 & n.1. Accordingly, they are both incorporatedby reference in the FAC and central to Rodriguez's claims. considerthemindecidingtheMotion. B. DeclaratoryJudgment In Count 1, Rodriguez asks The Court may therefore

the Court to enter a "declaratory judgment that defendant LabCorp was under a duty and obligation to fully comply with federal and District of Columbia government drug testing procedures pursuant to its contract with [the] District of Columbia government and failed todo so." FAC**~** 35. LabCorp seeks to dismiss this claimon the grounds that it is duplicative of Rodriguez's other claims. Def.'sMot. at 8-9. Rodriguez contends that dismissal is improper because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "permit[] parties to 'set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically,' and to 'state as many separate claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency.'" Pl.Is Opp'n at 14-15 (citingClevelandv. PolicyMgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 805 (1999) (quotingFed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(2))). The Declaratory Judgment Act, 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 201, provides that "[i]n a case of actual controversywithin its jurisdiction any court of the United States, upon the filing of an -8-appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such a declaration, whetherornot furtherrelief is orcouldbe sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). This language "has long been understood 'to confer
on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants.'" Medimmune, Inc.
v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 136 (2007) (quotingWiltonv. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995)); see also Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 72 (1985) ("[T]he declaratory judgment statute is an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.") (citationomitted)
. Although Rodriguez is correct that he is allowed to plead in the alternative, he has not articulated any reason to maintain the declaratory judgment claim as a separate cause of action. The claim does not present any legal or factual theories that arenot alreadysubsumed inhis otherclaims. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 766 (9th Cir. 2007) ("To the extent [plaintiff] seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action, the claimis merely duplicative and was properly dismissed.") Further, Rodriguez does not identify any way inwhichhis future actions
are likely to be affected by the declaratory relief he seeks. See Schulman v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc., 35 F.3d 799, 812 -9-(3d Cir. 1994) ("Even if a declaratory judgment would clarify the parties' legal rights, it should ordinarily not be granted unless 'the parties' plans of actions are likely to be affected by a declaratory judgment.11 ) • Accordingly, Count 1 shall be dismissed. C. FraudulentMisrepresentation In Count 2, Rodriguez brings a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. To plead a prima facie claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege "(1) a false representation (2) in reference to a material fact, (3) made with knowledge of its falsity, (4) with intent to deceive, and (5) action taken in reliance upon the representation.11 Atraqchiv. GUMC UnifiedBillingServs., 788A.2d 559, 563 (D.C. 2002)
.4 A false representation "is an assertion that is not in accord with the facts. 11 Saucier v. Countrywide Home Loans, 64 A.3d428, 438-39 (D.C. 2013) (citations and internalpunctuation marksomitted)
. Because fraud claims are subject to a heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff "must state the time, place and content of the false misrepresentations, the fact misrepresented and

4 The parties agree that District of Columbia substantive law applies to Plaintiff's claims. See Def.'s Mot. at 10 (citing District of Columbia law as source of applicable standard); Pl.'sOpp'nat 5 (same). -10-what was obtained or given up as a consequence of the fraud." United States ex rel. Joseph v. Cannon, 642 F.2d 1373, 1385 (D.C. Cir. 1981). However, "intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Rodriguez's fraud claim is deficient in several respects. First, he fails to identify any particular misrepresentation by LabCorp. His sole allegationpertainingto this element is that LabCorp's employees "failedto disclose accurate information and made false representations to the District of Columbia and the plaintiff regarding results and procedures used in [his] drug test." FAC**~** 39. This allegation is too generalized and conclusory to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirement. It fails to specifythe time, place, orcontent of LabCorp's employees' misrepresentations. As previously noted, Rodriguez does not allege that his test results were factually inaccurate.5 Instead, his theory is that LabCorp used improper testing procedures. However, as discussed below, this contention is premised entirely on LabCorp's own Report.

5 In its Motion to Dismiss Rodriguez's original Complaint, LabCorp pointed out that "Plaintiff does not allege that his test results were inaccurate or that he had not engaged in marijuana use prior to providing his urine sample; he simply claims that LabCorp should not have performed the confirmatory test aridthenreportedthe results totheMRO." SeeDef.'sMot. to Dismiss [Original Compl.] at 2 [Dkt. No. 9]. Rodriguez had the opportunityto address thispoint inhis FAC, but didnot do so. -11-Accordingly, it is entirely unclear what specific statement or othercommunicationbyLabCorpwas false ormisleading. Second, "[a] plaintiff may recover for a defendant's fraudulent statement only if the plaintiff took some action in reliance on that statement." Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 22-23 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citingVa. Acad. of Clinical Psychologistsv. Grp. Hosp. &Med. Servs., Inc., 878 A.2d 1226, 1237-38 (D.C. 2005)). Rodriguez does not claim that he himself relied on LabCorp's Report. Instead, he contends that he may recover for fraud based on the District of Columbia's reliance. However, he cites no District of Columbia case to support this contention, and our Court of Appeals has rejected the argument that a thirdparty's reliance satisfies the reliance element of common-law fraud. See id. at 23 (affirming dismissal of common-law fraud claim because "[r]ather than suggesting its own reliance, [plaintiff] says the PTO relied on [defendant's] alleged misrepresentation")**The~efore,** Rodriguezhasnotmadeouttheelementofreliance.6

6 Plaintiff cites Bridge v. Phoenix Bond 

### &Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639, 655-57 (2008) for thepropositionthat third-partyreliance satisfies the reliance element of fraud. Pl.'s Opp'n at 17-18. In Bridge, the Supreme Court considered third-party reliance in the context of a civil RICO claimpremised onviolations of the federal mail fraud statute. The Court observed that "it may be that first-party reliance is an element of a common-law fraud claim," but emphasized that the case before it concerned a "statutoryoffense that is distinct from common-law fraud." Id. at 656 (both emphases added)
. Since Rodriguez brings a claim -12-Third, beyond a formulaic recitation of the elements of fraud, Rodriguez has not alleged any facts suggesting that LabCorp or any of its employees knew or believed the Report was inaccurate, or intendedto deceive Rodriguez, or anyone else, by providingfalse information. For eachof these reasons, Rodriguez fails to state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Count 2 shallbedismissed. D. NegligentMisrepresentation In Count 3, Rodriguez brings a claim for negligent misrepresentation. The elements of negligent misrepresentation
are similar to the elements of fraud, but do not include the element of fraudulent intent. Thus, "[t]o establish negligent misrepresentationbya defendant, a plaintiffmust showthat: 1.
2.

3 . The defendant negligently information[,] The defendant intended or should the plaintiff would likely be taken in reliance upon [the] [and] communicated false
have recognized that imperiled by action misrepresentation[,]
The plaintiff reasonably relied upon informationtohis [orher] detriment. the false
Hall v. Ford Enters., Ltd., 445 A.2d 610, 612 (D.C. 1982) (citingRestatement of Torts 2d § 311 (1965); W. Prosser, Torts, § 107, at 704-10 (4thed. 1971)).

for common law fraudunderDistrict of Columbia law, not a claim underthe civilRICOprovisions, Bridge is inapposite. -13-Rodriguez fails to make out the elements of negligent misrepresentation for largely the same reasons that he fails to state a claim for fraud, namely, that he has not identified any false information communicated by LabCorp, and does not claim that he himself relied on such information. shallbedismissed. E. Negligence Therefore, Count 3

In Count 4, Rodriguez brings a claim for negligence. The elements of negligence are the existence of "a duty of care, breach of that duty, and injury proximately caused by that breach." Odemns v. Dist. of Columbia, 930 A.2d 137, 143 (D.C. 2007) (citationandquotationsmarksomitted)
. The parties address a significant portion of their papers to the issue of whether LabCorp owed Rodriguez a duty of care. See Def.'s Mem. at 12-14; Pl.'s Opp'n at 6-14; Def.'s Reply at 3-7. Whethera defendant owedtheplaintiff a dutyof care is a question of law to be decided by the court, with an eye to whether "injuryto [theplaintiff] was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant" at the time of the accident. Haynesworthv. D.H. Stevens Co., 645 A.2d 1095, 1098 (D.C. 1994). The court must also consider whether any create such a duty. Odemns,applicable statutes or regulations 930 A.2d at 143 (citing Jarrett v. WoodwardBros., Inc., 751A.2d972, 980 (D.C. 2000)).

-14-Although the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has not addressedwhether a commercial laboratoryowes a dutyof care to drug-testing subjects, many other courts have recognized the existence of such a duty. See, e.g., Cooper v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, Inc., 150 F.3d 376, 379 (4th Cir. 1998) ("The overall trend is for courts to recognize the existence of a limited duty on the part of the laboratory to employees who are the subject of the tests."); Quisenberry v. Compass Vision, Inc., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1230 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ("To [decline to recognize such a duty] would mean to deprive thousands of individuals from an opportunity to challenge or receive any
recourse for the repercussions they may suffer due to negligently performed laboratory tests producing erroneous or inaccurate test results."); Chapman v. LabOne, 460 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1001 (S.D. Iowa 2006) (finding a duty because defendant laboratory "was aware it was testing employee samples, and accordingly, could anticipate that harm could come to the employee as a result of [its] negligent behavior in processing the sample"). In fact, although LabCorp contends that it did not owe Rodriguez a duty of care, .at least two of the cases it cites to support its position hold that drug testing laboratories do owe such a duty. See Nehrenz v. Dunn, 593 So. 2d 915, 918 (La. Ct. App. 1992) (sustaining negligence claim of terminated employee -15-against laboratory); Elliott v. Lab. Specialists, Inc., 588 So. 2d 175, 176 (La. Ct. App. 1991) ("The risk of harm in our society to an individual because of a false-positive dr:ug test is so significant that any individual wrongfully accusedof drug usage by his employer is within the scope of protection under thelaw."), writdenied, 592 So. 2d415 (La. 1992). As these cases have recognized, it is entirely foreseeable that an employee who submits a specimen for drug testing will suffer adverse effects to his or her employment if the laboratory erroneously reports a positive result. The District of Columbia's regulations expressly provide for termination of employment following a positive drug test. See 6-B D.C.M.R. § 3907.1 ("The following shall be grounds for termination of employment
. (a) Aconfirmedpositivedrug test result
.

.")
. Moreover, the District of Columbia and the United States Department of Transportation have both enacted regulations requiring drug testing laboratories to implement quality control procedures, presumably to protect against the danger of a false positive. See 6-B D.C.M.R. § 3901 et seq.; 49 C.F.R. Part 40, Subpart F. Thus, it is fully consistent with general tort principles and the tendency of the courts to hold, and this Court does hold, that commercial laboratories, such as LabCorp,
owe a dutyof caretodrugtesting subjects, suchasRodriguez.

-16-However, as discussed, Rodriguez has not alleged that his test results were inaccurate, only that LabCorp's violation of certain procedural requirements caused the results to be erroneouslyreported tohis employer. WhetherLabCorp's dutyto Rodriguez included strict compliance with these procedural requirements, and whether a plaintiff, such as Rodriguez, can demonstrate proximate causation where he does not allege that his test results were inaccurate, are open questions.7 However, the Court neednot reach these questionsbecause there is a more fundamental problem with Rodriguez's negligence claim, namely that the FAC does not support the "reasonable inference," Iqbal, 556 

### u.s. at 678, that LabCorp violated any procedural requirement. As previously discussed, Rodriguez alleges that LabCorp breached its dutyto complywiththe quality control regulations in two respects, first, by not obtaining a positive initial
screen prior to conducting a confirmatory test, and second, by not using the immunoassaymethodologyrequiredby 6-BD.C.M.R. § 3906. With respect to the first theory, the sole factual

7 TheCourtnotes that the qualitycontrol regulations require a laboratory to store a urine specimen, and if the specimen is confirmed positive, to notify the employee of his or her right to send the stored sample to another certified laboratory for confirmationof thepositive result. See 6-BD.C.M.R. § 3906.5. There is no evidence Rodriguez ever availed himself of this right. -17-allegat.ion to support it is in paragraph 12 of the FAC, which contends: [T]here is absolutely
.no evidence or information in the report provided to the District of Columbia indicating that [Rodriguez] had a positive initial screen, i.e., over 50 ng/mL. No where [sic] in the report from LabCorp is it indicated that the initial testmetorexceededthe 50ng/mLcutofflevel. FAC**~** 12. However, the Report states in two separate places that LabCorp did conduct an initial screen of Rodriguez's specimen, and that such screen exceeded the concentration cutoff of 50 ng/mL. First, on a page titled "Specimen Test Results," the Report lists both a "screening" and a "confirm" test, defines the "Screening Cutoff" as 50 ng/mL, and indicates that the collective results of the "screening" and "confirm" tests conducted on Rodriguez's specimen were "POSITIVE." See Steiner Decl., Ex. Aat 6. Second, ona page titled "SpecimenSummary," theReport states: Initial Test Results (Immunoassay) positiveforCannabinoid Confirmation Test Results (GC/MS) MarijuanaMetabolite: 48ng/ml Id. at 1. In short, Rodriguez's contention Presumptive
Positive for

that "[t]here is absolutely no evidence or information in the report" that his specimen had a positive initial screen is squarely contradicted

-18-bythe Report itself. Consequently, the Court cannot accept the allegations inParagraph 12 oftheFAC astrue. Withrespect toRodriguez's secondtheory as tohowLabCorp breacheditsdutyofcare, hecontends: It is clear that LabCorp performed the wrong kind of test, i.e., it did not administer the enzyme multiple immunoassay technique (EMIT) test as required byD.C. municipal regulation 6-BD.C.M.R. § 3906. The test administeredby LabCorp, in its own words, was a 'qualitative' test which 'should not be used to determine the concentrationof drug ordrug metabolite present inspecimens.' FAC**~** 16. Rodriguez quotes directlyfromthe "Initial testData Section" of the Report to support this allegation. See FAC**~** 16, n.l. Again, Rodriguez's allegations about the Report are directly contradicted by the Report itself. The Report states in at least three different places that LabCorp first used an immunoassay test, which is a qualitative test, to conduct the initial screen, and then used a GCMS test, which is a quantit'ative test, to confirm the positive result and measure the precise concentration of drug metabolites present in Rodriguez's sample. See Steiner Decl., Ex. A at 1, 2, 7, 16. This is what the regulations require. See 6-B D.C.M.R. 3906.4 ("[T]he vendor shall split each sample and perform enzymemultiplied immunossay [sic] (EMIT) testing A positive EMIT test shall be confirmed using the gas

-19-chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCMS) methodology."); see also Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 610 (1989) ("While drug screens may be conducted by immunoassays positive drug findings are confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. These tests, if properly conducted, identify the presence of drugs in the biological samples tested with great accuracy.") (quoting United States Dep't of Transp. Field Manual: Control of Alcohol and Drug Use in Railroad Operations B-12 (1986) (quotation marks and brackets omitted)); Nat'l TreasuryEmployees Unionv. U.S. Customs Serv., 27 F.3d 623, 625 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("The laboratory to which specimens are sent will first employ an immunoassay test; any sample identified as positive will then be tested using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) techniques.") (citationomitted)
.8 While the Court would ordinarily be required to accept Plaintiff's factual allegations as true at this stage of the proceedings, his allegations rely on a document that expressly contradicts the conclusions he draws from it. Therefore, the Court is not required to accept such allegations as true. See Kaempe, 367 F.3d at 963 (citing Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002)). Further, without any other factual

8 The Report does not specify that LabCorp used an "enzymemultiplied" immunoassay technique, as opposed to a different type of immunoassay. However, Rodriguez does not allege that LabCorp performed the wrong type of immunoassay test, and the Report does not suggest as much. -20-allegations to support his claim that LabCorp breached its duty of care, oranycontentionthat the test result was erroneous or inaccurate, Rodriguez's negligence claim does not satisfy the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal. 4 shallbedismissed. F. Intentional InterferenceClaims Accordingly, Count

In Counts Five and Six, Rodriguez brings claims for intentional interference with prospective advantage and intentional interferencewithbusinessrelations. LabCorp did not address these claims in its moving papers, and Rodriguez contends, therefore, that such claims may not be dismissed. P l .'s Opp'n at 5-6
. LabCorp counters in its Reply brief that itwas not requiredto seekdismissal of Counts 5 and 6 because the FAC brings them against the "John Doe" Defendants only, and not against LabCorp. Def.'s Reply at 12. LabCorp further argues that even if it was named as a defendant in Counts 5 and 6, the claims should be dismissed for failure to statea causeofaction. Id. at 13-15. TheCourt agrees. LabCorp is correct that the intentional interference claims state that they are brought against the "John Does" and do not mention LabCorp. Rodriguez now contends (in his Opposition to LabCorp's Motion) that LabCorp is vicariously liable for the conduct of theJohnDoes, none of whomhavebeen servedwiththe FAC. Pl.'s Opp'n at 5-6. The FAC does not assert this theory -21-in Counts 5 and 6, and therefore LabCorp was not required to addressthosecountsinitsmovingpapers. Even if Rodriguez had named LabCorp as a defendant in Counts 5 and 6, he has not stated a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage or intentional interference with business relations. To establish either claim, a plaintiff must allege facts setting forth: (1) the existence of a valid business relationship or expectancy; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationshipor expectancy; (3) the defendant's intentional interference with the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resulting damages. See NCRIC, Inc. v. Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., Inc., 957 A.2d 890, 900 & n.l8 (D.C. 2008); Casco Marina Dev., L.L.C. v. D.C. RedevelopmentLandAgency, 834A.2d77, 84 (D.C. 2003). There is not a single factual allegation in the FAC plausibly suggesting that LabCorp (or anyone else) intended to interfere with Rodriguez's employment relationship with the District of Columbia. The mere awareness that Rodriguez could be adversely affectedbya positive test result is insufficient. As ourCourtofAppealshasobserved: As its name would suggest; intentional requires an element of intent. intent to interfere or knowledge that injure the plaintiff's business insufficienttoimposeliability.

-22- interference [A] general conduct will dealings isBennett Enterprises, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 45 F.3d 493, 499 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original) (citation and quotationmarks omitted)
. Because there areno facts suggesting that LabCorp, or any of its employees, acted with a desire or purpose to interfere with Rodriguez,s employment, the Court shall dismiss the intentional interference claims at Counts 5 and6.9 G. BreachofContract In Count 7, Rodriguez brings a claim for breach of contract. A claim for breach of contract includes four elements: "(1) a valid contract between the parties; (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract; (3) a breach of that duty; and (4) damages caused by breach.11 Tsinolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984A.2d 181, 187 (D.C. 2009) (citationomitted). Rodriguez contends that LabCorp1s contract with the District of Columbia required compliance with the quality control regulations. He further claims that hehas standingas a thirdpartybeneficiary to enforce this aspect of the contract, which LabCorp disputes. See Def. 1s Mot. at 14-17; Pl. 1s Opp1n at 20- 22.

9 Having so concluded, the Court does not reach LabCorp,s alternate contentionthat an "at-will11 employment contract, such as the one between Rodriguez and the District of Columbia, cannot, as a matter of law, satisfy the first element of an intentional interference claim. Def.,s Reply at 14 (citing Zelaya v. UNICCO Serv. Co., 587 F. Supp. 2d 277, 286-87 (D.D.C. 2008))
. -23-Whatever the merits of Rodriguez's third-party beneficiary theory, his breach of contract claim, like his other claims, is predicated on the contention that LabCorp violated the quality control regulations. As already noted, he pleads no facts plausibly suggesting LabCorp violated any of these provisions. Accordingly, even assuming that the contractbetweenLabCorp and the District of Columbia required compliance with the regulations, and that a drug testing subject has standing to enforce this requirement, Rodriguez still would not state a claim for breach of contract. dismissed. Therefore, Count 7 shall be

H. BreachoftheCovenantofGoodFaithandFairDealing Finally, at Count 8, Rodriguez brings a claimforbreachof the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. "UnderDistrict of Columbia law, every contract contains within it an implied covenant of bothparties to act ingood faith anddamages maybe recovered for its breach as part of a contract action." Choharis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 961 A.2d 1080, 1087 (D.C. 2008) (citation omitted)
. This covenant means that "neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to_ receive the fruits of the contract." Allworthv. HowardUniv., 890A.2d 194, 201 (D.C. 2006) (citations omitted). "To state a claimfor breachof the impliedcovenant of good faith and fair dealing, a -24-plaintiff must allege either bad faith or conduct that is arbitraryand capricious." Wright v. HowardUniv., 60 A.3d 749, 754 (D.C. 2013) Rodriguez was not a party to the contract between the District of Columbia and LabCorp. The mere fact that he may have been one of thousands of beneficiaries of a specific quality control provision contained in that contract does not
mean that LabCorp generally owed him a contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. Further, there are no facts inthe FAC suggesting that LabCorp or any of its employees operated inbad faith or in an arbitrary and capricious manner at any time. Accordingly, Count 8 shallbedismissed. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion is granted, and the FAC shall be dismissed. An Order shall accompany this MemorandumOpinion.

February4, 2014 UnitedStatesDistrictJudge Copies to: attorneysonrecordviaECF

-25-