A worker who allegedly admits that he created his "own" power of attorney may not possess a cause of action for his claim that he was falsely accused of forging company documents and discharged. Allegedly, Pratt & Whitney received wage garnishment orders from the California Department of Child Support Services and the Connecticut Superior Court. The pro se plaintiff, Glenn Shreiber, allegedly wrote to Pratt & Whitney and demanded that Pratt pay to the plaintiff the amount withheld from the plaintiff's paychecks because of garnishment orders. The plaintiff proceeded to claim that because the defendants did not respond to his requests for payment, the defendants accepted his claims and owed the plaintiff millions of dollars. The plaintiff filed suit against Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies Corp., alleging breach of contract, and requested that the defendants pay the plaintiff $142 million. The court liberally construed the plaintiff's pro se complaint. The essence of the plaintiff's complaint is that because the defendants did not respond to the plaintiff's requests, the defendants accepted the plaintiff's demands for millions of dollars. "Silence alone does not constitute an `expression of acceptance' of an offer or a counteroffer, under normal circumstances," pursuant to Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Flexible Tubing Corp., a 1967 decision of the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege a breach-of-contract claim, and the court denied the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract. The plaintiff's complaint also alleged that the defendants falsely accused the plaintiff of forging company documents. In his amended complaint, the plaintiff allegedly admitted that he created his "own" powers of attorney for United Technologies Corp. and that Pratt & Whitney discharged the plaintiff, after he requested that the defendants pay the plaintiff $32 million, pursuant to his "power of attorney." The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that he was falsely accused as not plausible. Even construing the complaint liberally, the court was unable to find that the defendants are legally responsible for the alleged conduct. The plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege a claim for false accusation, and the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. 

VIEW FULL CASE