oralargument not yet scheduled united states · pdf fileoralargument not yet scheduled in the...

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
IN THE
United States Court of AppealsFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
13-7088, 13-7089
DEVINCCI SALAH HOURANI, ISSAM SALAH HOURANI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.
ALEXANDER V. MIRTCHEV, KRULL CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FINAL REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS AND OPPOSITION FOR CROSS-APPELLEES
d
HOWARD W. FOSTERFOSTER, PC150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2150Chicago, Illinois 60606(312) [email protected]
LOUIS G. ADOLFSENMELITO & ADOLFSEN, PC233 BroadwayNew York, New York 10279(212) [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
USCA Case #13-7088 Document #1473918 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page 1 of 62

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFSAPPELLANTS REPLY ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS-CROSS-APPELLEES RULE 11 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I. PLAINITFFS CLAIMS ARE DOMESTIC UNDER EITHER TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. The Enterprise Test Establishes A Domestic Cause of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Even If The Pattern Test Is Used, The Alleged Extortion Scheme Is Still Domestic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
i. Beck underscores the flaw in Defendants argument . . . . . . . . 10
ii. Defendants provide no justification for why Pasquantino is not controlling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
iii. Chao Fan Xu does not support dismissal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
iv. Norex is distinguishable on its facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
II. THE DEFENDANTS ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS EACH FAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Plaintiffs Properly Plead Extortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. Plaintiffs Properly Plead Money Laundering Violations . . . . . . . . 20
C. The Pattern Of Racketeering Is Related And Continuous . . . . . . . 22

PAGE
ii
i. The predicate acts are related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ii. Plaintiffs satisfy the open-ended continuity test . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
iii. Plaintiffs also satisfy the closed-ended continuity test . . . . . . 25
D. Mirtchev Managed Krull Through A Pattern Of Racketeering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
E. Plaintiffs Injuries Were Caused By Mirtchevs Domestic Acts Of Extortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
F. The FAC Properly Alleges A Conspiracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
G. The Act Of State Doctrine Has No Application To This Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
H. The Political Question Doctrine Has No Application To This Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
I. Kazakhstan Does Not Need To Be Joined Under Rule 19 . . . . . . . 34
J. Plaintiffs Did Not Violate Rule 11; Dismissal Is Not Warranted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
III. THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFAME CLAIM IS PROPERLY PLED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A. The Conspiracy Is Adequately Alleged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B. The Statute Of Limitations Does Not Bar This Claim . . . . . . . . . . . 36
IV. CROSS-APPEAL: JUDGE HOGAN DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION IN DENYING RULE 11 SANCTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A. Background: Defendants Repeated Attacks on the Pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B. Plaintiffs Have Always Made the Same Key Allegations About Dariga; The District Court Made No Finding Of Contradicting Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

PAGE
iii
C. Judge Hogan Did Not Abuse His Discretion Under Rule 11. . . 42
D. There was No Determination that Any Documents were Forged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE
Cases
Adams v. Quattlebaum, 219 F.R.D. 195 (D.D.C. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 30
Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 111 S.Ct. 922 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
BCCI Holdings (Lux.), S.A. v. Khalil, 56 F.Supp. 2d 14, 54 (D.D.C 1999), revd on other ground, 214 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12, 22
BCS Serv., Inc. v. BG Investments, Inc., 728 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 9, 10
Burman v. Phoenix Worldwide Indust., Inc., 384 F.Supp.2d 316 n.7 (D.D.C. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Bussineau v. President and Directors of Georgetown College, 518 A.2d 423 (D.C. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
*Cedeno v. Castillo, 10-3861, 457 Fed. Appx. 35, 2012 WL 205960, at *1-*2 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
*Cedeno v. Intech Group, Inc., 733 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
*Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 27

PAGE
v
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 871 F.Supp. 2d 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 14
*Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed. 2d 359 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr. Inc. of Peoria, 388 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Dale v. Frankel, 131 F. Supp. 2d 852 (S.D. Miss. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Davis Broadcasting Inc. v. F.C.C., 02-1109, 63 Fed.Appx. 526, 2003 WL 21186042, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 16, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Doe I v. Israel, 400 F.Supp.2d 86 (D.D.C. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
*Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 573 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Driggers v. Beck, 1:10-cv-00182, 2012 WL 3731783, at *12 (D. Idaho August 28, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Eastway Const. Corp. v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Edmondson & Gallagher, 48