Shirvinski v. United States Coast Guard

673 F.3d 308 (2012)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Shirvinski v. United States Coast Guard

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
673 F.3d 308 (2012)

Facts

The United States Coast Guard (defendant) contracted with SFA, Inc. (defendant) and Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (Booz Allen) (defendant) on a project to modernize the Coast Guard’s fleet (the Deepwater Project). Mohawk Information Systems and Consulting, Inc. (MISC) was an SFA subcontractor. In March 2008, Adam Shirvinski (plaintiff) entered a private agreement with MISC to provide consulting services on the Deepwater Project. Shirvinski had a tense working relationship with Booz Allen and Coast Guard employees. In August 2008, Coast Guard employee Stephen Hoshowsky (defendant) sent Coast Guard officials an email indicating that Shirvinski had repeatedly overstated his role on the Deepwater Project without properly identifying himself as a contractor. The Coast Guard officials requested that SFA take corrective action against Shirvinski, but SFA instead directed MISC to terminate Shirvinski’s contract, and MISC did so. Shirvinski sued the Coast Guard, Hoshowsky, Booz Allen, and SFA’s successor in federal court, alleging state-law tort claims. Shirvinski’s only claim against the Coast Guard was a defamation claim seeking declaratory relief. The district court dismissed the claims against Hoshowsky and SFA’s successor. The court also dismissed Shirvinski’s claim against the Coast Guard, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to hear a common-law tort suit for equitable relief. Shirvinski subsequently amended his complaint to assert (1) a federal procedural-due-process claim against the Coast Guard based on the Coast Guard’s alleged request that Shirvinski be removed from the Deepwater Project, which Shirvinski alleged had been accompanied by defamatory allegations about Shirvinski’s character, and (2) state-conspiracy and tortious-interference claims against Booz Allen based on unsupported allegations that a Booz Allen employee had helped draft Hoshowsky’s allegedly defamatory email. The district court granted summary judgment for the Coast Guard and Booz Allen, and Shirvinski appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wilkinson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership