If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
June 20, 2020

Table of Contents

D&S Consulting, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Civil Procedure, Contracts, International Law

Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria

Civil Procedure, International Law

Bronner v. Duggan

Civil Procedure

United States v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC

Construction Law, Contracts, Government Contracts

United States v. Han

Criminal Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Hard Cases

JOSEPH MARGULIES

verdict post

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies uses the killing of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta by police to explain some lessons for reform we might learn. Margulies calls upon us to use this case to reexamine the circumstances that should result in a custodial arrest and to shrink the function of police so as to use them only in the very few situations that truly require them.

Read More

US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Opinions

D&S Consulting, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Docket: 18-7140

Opinion Date: June 19, 2020

Judge: Srikanth Srinivasan

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts, International Law

After DSCI filed suit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens, pointing to the forum-selection clause in the parties' contract. In this case, the contract provided that the Board of Grievances, a Saudi Arabian administrative court, shall be the assigned settlement of any disputes arising out of the contract. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the Kingdom's motion, holding that the contract's forum-selection clause is mandatory and the dispute thus belonged before the Board of Grievances.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria

Docket: 18-7154

Opinion Date: June 19, 2020

Judge: Katsas

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, International Law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not permit courts to contemplate how much merits litigation is too much. Instead, they must resolve colorable assertions of immunity before the foreign sovereign may be required to address the merits at all. The DC Circuit held that it has jurisdiction to review the district court's order under the collateral order doctrine, because the district court conclusively rejected Nigeria's assertion of immunity from having to defend the merits in this case. The court held that Nigeria's immunity defense is at least colorable enough to support appellate jurisdiction, and thus the court need not determine whether Nigeria will ultimately prevail on that defense. The court also held that the district court erred in requiring Nigeria to defend the merits before resolving its colorable immunity assertion. Therefore, the court denied P&ID's motion to dismiss the appeal. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Bronner v. Duggan

Docket: 19-7017

Opinion Date: June 19, 2020

Judge: Henderson

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Four professors of American studies filed suit against the American Studies Association (ASA) and individual ASA leaders after the ASA endorsed a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, alleging that the individual defendants breached various statutory, contractual and fiduciary duties in connection with the boycott. The district court dismissed their ultra vires claim and all derivative claims brought on the ASA's behalf. The professors then filed a second amended complaint. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the second amended complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court did not err in revisiting its jurisdictional determination, applying the legal certainty test or valuing the amount in controversy.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC

Docket: 19-7010

Opinion Date: June 19, 2020

Judge: Judith Ann Wilson Rogers

Areas of Law: Construction Law, Contracts, Government Contracts

ACC, the subcontractor on a Corps flood protection project, filed suit against the prime contractor, Hirani, for breach of contract and the providers of Hirani's payment bond, Colonial, under the Miller Act for unpaid labor and materials. The district court entered judgment in favor of ACC and awarded damages against both defendants. The DC Circuit remanded the case to the district court to make findings of fact as to when the Prime Contract was terminated and whether ACC performed labor or supplied material on April 29 and/or April 30. In the event that Colonial and Hirani cannot meet their burden to show that ACC's Miller Act claim was untimely, then this court can resolve the parties' other Miller Act contentions. If Hirani and Colonial show that termination occurred before April 29 or that ACC performed no labor or supplied no material on April 29 or 30, the court can then address the Miller Act statute of limitations issue. The court affirmed the restitution damages award against Hirani on ACC's contract claim where ACC has not provided the court with any basis to deviate from the principle of D.C. law that restitution, not quantum meruit, is the proper remedy where there is an express contract between the parties. The court deferred addressing other issues raised by the parties.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Han

Docket: 18-3081

Opinion Date: June 19, 2020

Judge: Merrick B. Garland

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of tax evasion in connection with his 2010 and 2011 individual tax returns. Defendant was a chief executive of a recycling technology company and solicited millions of dollars from investors. Defendant failed to report as income the corporate funds he converted to his personal benefit. The court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; held that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial; held that any error in the district court's handling of defendant's preferred theory-of-the-defense instruction was harmless; and, given the extensive evidence of defendant's guilt, held that he has no colorable argument that he was prejudiced by his attorney's decision.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043