Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
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
 
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.

    • More From This User

    48 p.
    SEC v. Ashland Oil
    Mike Koehler
    16 Reads
    18 p.
    Ralph Lauren Corp. Non-Prosecution Agreement
    Mike Koehler
    314 Reads
    25 p.
    U.S. v. Pierucci (Indictment)
    Mike Koehler
    601 Reads
    12 p.
    U.S. v. Rothschild (Information)
    Mike Koehler
    297 Reads
    7 p.
    U.S. v. Rothschild (Plea Agreement)
    Mike Koehler
    292 Reads
    76 p.
    TJGEM Complaint
    Mike Koehler
    132 Reads
    18 p.
    U.S. v. Parker Drilling (DPA)
    Mike Koehler
    158 Reads
    15 p.
    U.S. v. Parker Drilling (Information)
    Mike Koehler
    150 Reads
    19 p.
    U.S. v. Uhl (Plea Agreement)
    Mike Koehler
    231 Reads
    3 p.
    U.S. v. Dubois (DOJ Motion for Downward Departure)
    Mike Koehler
    393 Reads
    21 p.
    DuBois Plea Agreement
    Mike Koehler
    180 Reads
    7 p.
    U.S. v. DuBois (Motion to Seal)
    Mike Koehler
    383 Reads
    12 p.
    U.S. v. Uhl (Information)
    Mike Koehler
    412 Reads
    14 p.
    U.S. v. DuBois (Information)
    Mike Koehler
    196 Reads
    22 p.
    U.S. v. Jensen (Indictment)
    Mike Koehler
    274 Reads
    21 p.
    U.S. v. Kowalewski (Indictment)
    Mike Koehler
    322 Reads
    1 p.
    The Story of George McLean
    Mike Koehler
    187 Reads
    20 p.
    SEC v. Straub (Defendants' Motion for Interlocutory Appeal)
    Mike Koehler
    278 Reads
    29 p.
    SEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen (Joint Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint)
    Mike Koehler
    252 Reads
    23 p.
    SEC v. Steffan (Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss)
    Mike Koehler
    456 Reads
    13 p.
    Statement of Facts - Griffiths Energy Enforcement Action (Canada)
    Mike Koehler
    154 Reads
    22 p.
    SEC v. Straub (Decision on Motion to Dismiss)
    Mike Koehler
    1246 Reads
    88 p.
    U.S. v. Duperval (Duperval Appellate Brief)
    Mike Koehler
    338 Reads
    15 p.
    U.S. v. Siriwan (DOJ Response)
    Mike Koehler
    221 Reads
    58 p.
    SEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen Amended Complaint
    Mike Koehler
    378 Reads
    Notes
    Load more