Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kennedy v. AT&T, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

November 28, 2018

AT&T, INC., et al., Defendants.

          Edward Thomas Kennedy, Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. Pro Se Plaintiff.



         Plaintiff Edward Thomas Kennedy proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This action was commenced on August 24, 2018, and invokes the jurisdiction of this Court by reason of diversity of citizenship of the parties. (D.I. 2 at 2). The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).


         Plaintiff, a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has sued AT&T and its officers and directors, Ernst & Young LLP and its officers and directors, and numerous attorneys. The Complaint contains ten counts, titled as follows: Count One, Trespass; Count Two, Trespass on the Case; Count Three, Trespass on the Case-Vicarious Liability; Count Four, Failure to Provide a Republican Form of Government; Count Five, Action of Trover; Count Six, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Count Seven, Breach of Contract; Count Eight, Defamation; Count Nine, Fraud Material Omission; and Count Ten, Violation of Whistleblower Retaliation Provisions.

         Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another caused him to be unlawfully injured against his will. (D.I. 2 at 3). Plaintiff alleges that from the moment he was harmed, until present, he was kept in constructive financial imprisonment. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges that he is, and was, a whistleblower. (Id.). He alleges Defendants caused his unlawful loss of liberty and affected his good reputation and ability to earn a living. (Id. at 5). He alleges Defendants lied, misled, misconstrued, misrepresented and filed false paperwork on reports to federal agencies, commissions and agents of the U.S. government. (Id.).

         Plaintiff alleges State and Federal agencies "deregulated regulated inside wire assets of AT&T, Inc., through fire walls, but/and neglected to enforce their rules for 40 years." (Id. at 7). He alleges this allowed Defendants Ginn and Stephenson to steal assets and/or cash from "we the people" for personal gain. (Id.). When Plaintiff complained to Ginn, he retaliated, injured and damaged Plaintiff, breached Plaintiffs contract promise of a career, damaged his good name, and obstructed his ability to earn a living in violation of whistleblower retaliation provisions. (Id.).

         Plaintiff alleges that Ginn and AT&T stole his trade secrets. (Id. at 8). He further alleges that AT&T promised him a career and job security after legal and ethical violations by its corporate officers. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Ginn breached the contract, stole Plaintiff's trade secrets, and forced Plaintiff "into mind control torture or so-called 'Krone Training,' and/or 'Kroning' and/or 'leadership Development' that caused [his] emotional distress." (Id.). Plaintiff alleges his family name - Kennedy - was stolen without permission or authority, explaining he is part of the "Kennedy family bloodline with a common law copyright of the name, kennedy for hundreds of years." (Id. at 9).

         Plaintiff alleges that Ginn and AT&T breached the contract concerning Plaintiffs career. (Id.). He alleges Defendants defamed and injured him by fraud. (Id. at 9-10). Finally, he alleges all individual directors violated whistleblower retaliation provisions.[1](Id. at 10).

         Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.


         A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008).

         An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).

         The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915, the Court must grant Plaintiff leave to amend ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.