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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MPRI Motion to Dismiss

MPRI Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 199|Likes:
Published by MiseticLaw
MPRI has moved to dismiss a claim filed in Chicago by "Krajina" Serbs alleging that Croatia's 1995 Operation Storm amounted to genocide.
MPRI has moved to dismiss a claim filed in Chicago by "Krajina" Serbs alleging that Croatia's 1995 Operation Storm amounted to genocide.

More info:

Published by: MiseticLaw on Jul 21, 2013
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

07/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISION
 MILENA JOVIC, ZIVKA MIJIC, MIRAGRUBOR, BOSKO BJEGOVIC andDALIBOR MRKALJ, and all others similarlysituated,Plaintiffs,v.L-3 SERVICES, INC.; andENGILITY HOLDINGS, INC.,Defendants.Civ. Action No. 10-cv-5197Hon. John Z. Lee, U.S.D.J.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
James E. Tyrrell, Jr.Joseph E. HopkinsLisa Ann T. RuggieroPATTON BOGGS LLPOne Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor  Newark, New Jersey 07102Tel: (973) 848-5600Fax: (973) 848-5601
 Attorneys for Defendants Engility Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Services, Inc.
 Paul T. FoxThomas E. DuttonC. Allen Foster 
(pro hac vice pending)
 David S. Panzer 
(pro hac vice pending)
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100Chicago, Illinois 60601(312) 456-8400
 Attorneys for Defendants Engility Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Services, Inc.
Case: 1:10-cv-05197 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/01/13 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:707
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 3
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 5
 
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5
 
I.
 
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED................................................................ 5
 
A.
 
Even if a Ten-Year Limitation Period Applied And Were Subject toTolling, Plaintiffs Do Not Plead Facts Sufficient to Invoke that Relief andTheir Complaint Is Therefore Untimely. ................................................................ 6
 
B.
 
The Ten-Year Limitation Period is Not Subject to Tolling. ................................... 9
 
1.
 
The Ten-Year Period Began when Plaintiffs’ Claims Arose and,Therefore, Is Not Subject to Tolling. .......................................................... 9
 
2.
 
The Ten-Year Period Is Jurisdictional and Therefore Not Subjectto Tolling. .................................................................................................. 12
 
C.
 
Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Time-Barred by the Governing State Statute of Limitations. ........................................................................................................... 12
 
II.
 
THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER THEATS, SECTION 1331, AND CAFA. ................................................................................ 14
 
A.
 
The Complaint Should be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Cannot Overcomethe Presumption Against Extraterritoriality. ......................................................... 14
 
B.
 
There is No Private Right of Action Under Section 1331 for Violations of International Law. ................................................................................................. 17
 
C.
 
CAFA Does Not Provide Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs’ Claims................................ 18
 
III.
 
PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PLEAD CLAIMS FOR WHICH RELIEFCAN BE GRANTED. ....................................................................................................... 19
 
A.
 
There Is No Corporate Liability Under the ATS. ................................................. 19
 
B.
 
Counts I, IV, V, VI, and VIII Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Do Not Allege that Defendants Acted With the Requisite Mens Rea. ....................... 19
 
C.
 
Counts II, III, and VII Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Fail toPlead Essential Elements of Principal Liability. ................................................... 20
 
D.
 
Plaintiffs’ State Law Conspiracy Claims in Counts IX and X are notSustainable as a Matter of Law. ............................................................................ 23
 
Case: 1:10-cv-05197 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/01/13 Page 2 of 40 PageID #:708
 
ii1.
 
Plaintiffs’ Claims for Conspiracy to Commit Forced PopulationTransfer and Destruction of Property Fail Under Both Illinois andVirginia Law. ............................................................................................ 23
 
2.
 
Count X for Conspiracy to Commit Unlawful Conversion of Property Must Be Dismissed. ................................................................... 24
 
IV.
 
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE ACT OF STATEDOCTRINE. ..................................................................................................................... 25
 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30
 
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STANDING ORDERS ............................................ 30
 
Case: 1:10-cv-05197 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/01/13 Page 3 of 40 PageID #:709

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)//-->