Opinion ID: 3063298
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wrongful Hiring

Text: S&B also argues that the district court should not have dismissed its 11 wrongful hiring claims because Project Energy had an express or implied contractual duty not to interfere with S&B’s staffing of the construction jobs, stemming from Section 30.F, which required S&B to place highly qualified personnel on the two projects. This argument is frivolous. S&B cannot sustain an express or implied breach of contract claim based on this provision, which imposes no obligations on Project Energy with respect to S&B’s staffing of its construction jobs. Nor can S&B state a claim for aiding and abetting S&B employees’ breach of their fiduciary duty owed to S&B. To establish a cause of action for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, S&B must allege: 1) a fiduciary duty on the part of the wrongdoer; 2) a breach of fiduciary duty; 3) knowledge of the breach by the alleged aider and abettor; and 4) the aider and abettor's substantial assistance or encouragement of the wrongdoing. Pearlman v. Alexis, No. 0920865, 2009 WL 3161830, at  (Sept. 25, 2009) (slip copy). We agree with the district court that S&B’s complaint does not provide enough factual allegations, which if true, to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 958 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1965, 1964 (2007)). The complaint is void of any facts other than conclusory allegations that Project Energy provided 12 substantial assistance to or encouragement of any wrongdoing by S&B employees. S&B’s wrongful hiring claims fail as a matter of law, and we affirm the district court. AFFIRMED.7 7 Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied. 13