Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Watts Water v. Sidley (Sidley Motion for Summary Judgment)

Watts Water v. Sidley (Sidley Motion for Summary Judgment)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 501 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Published by: Mike Koehler on Aug 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/20/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACIVIL DIVISION
W
ATTS
W
ATER 
T
ECHNOLOGIES
,
 
I
 NC
.
 P 
 LAINTIFF 
,
 
V
.
 
S
IDLEY
A
USTIN
LLP,
 D
 EFENDANT 
.
 
2012 CA 004847 MHon. Gregory E. Jackson Next Court Date: September 7, 2012,9:30 a.m.Event: Initial Scheduling Conference
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Sidley Austin LLPrespectfully moves for summary judgment as to all counts of the Complaint on the grounds setforth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
RULE 12-I(A) STATEMENT
Defendant’s counsel unsuccessfully sought Plaintiff’s consent to the relief requested.
ORAL HEARING REQUESTED
Dated: July 27, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
By: /s/ John K. VillaJohn K. Villa (D.C. Bar No. 220392)Charles Davant IV (D.C. Bar No. 484305)Marcus P. Smith (D.C. Bar No. 996721)725 Twelfth Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20005Telephone: (202) 434-5000Facsimile: (202) 434-5029E-Mail:
 jvilla@wc.com
 
cdavant@wc.com
 
msmith@wc.comCounsel for Sidley Austin LLP 
 
 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACIVIL DIVISION
W
ATTS
W
ATER 
T
ECHNOLOGIES
,
 
I
 NC
.
 P 
 LAINTIFF 
,
 
V
.
 
S
IDLEY
A
USTIN
LLP,
 D
 EFENDANT 
.2012 CA 004847 MHon. Gregory E. Jackson Next Court Date: September 7, 2012,9:30 a.m.Event: Initial Scheduling Conference
DEFENDANT SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTWILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
John K. Villa (D.C. Bar No. 220392)Charles Davant IV (D.C. Bar No. 484305)Marcus P. Smith (D.C. Bar No. 996721)725 12th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20005(202) 434-5000
Counsel for Sidley Austin LLP 
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... iiSUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................1
 
RELEVANT STATUTORY BACKGROUND: THE FCPA .........................................................4
 
UNDISPUTED FACTS ...................................................................................................................5
 
A.
 
Sidley Is Engaged for Limited Due Diligence at Changsha Valve. .........................5
 
B.
 
Deloitte Reported the Purported “Kickback Policy” to Watts in 2004. ...................7
 
C.
 
Watts Creates and Operates a New Chinese Subsidiary. .........................................7
 
D.
 
Watts and Its Newly Formed Subsidiary Begin Violating the FCPA MoreThan Two Years After Sidley’s Due Diligence at Changsha Valve. .......................8
 
WATTS’ COMPLAINT ..................................................................................................................9
 
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD......................................................................................11
 
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................11
 
I.
 
WATTS CANNOT SHIFT TO INNOCENT OUTSIDE COUNSEL THECONSEQUENCES OF WATTS’ WRONGFUL CONDUCT. .........................................11
 
A.
 
In Pari Delicto Bars Watts’ Claims. .......................................................................12
 
1.
 
In Pari Delicto. ...........................................................................................12
 
2.
 
The Complaint Establishes Watts’ Vastly Greater Culpability. ................13
 
B.
 
Watts’ Wrongdoing Proximately Caused Its Own Alleged Losses. ......................14
 
C.
 
Watts’ Claims Violate Judicially Recognized Public Policy. ................................15
 
D.
 
Contributory Negligence Bars the Negligence Claims (Counts 1 and 3). .............17
 
II.
 
FCPA WORK WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SIDLEY’S ENGAGEMENT. ............18
 
III.
 
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARS ALL THREE COUNTS. ............................21
 
A.
 
The Breach of Contract Claim Is Time-Barred. .....................................................21
 
B.
 
The Negligence Claims Are Time-Barred. ............................................................21
 
IV.
 
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS WARRANTED ON WATTS’ DUPLICATIVECOUNTS 2 AND 3. ...........................................................................................................23
 
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................24
 

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Jeffrey Benzing liked this
Grace Chen liked this
Junmei Shang liked this
Jarod Taylor liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->