Alkanani v. Aegis Defense Services, LLC ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________
)
KHADIM ALKANANI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1607 (RWR)
)
AEGIS DEFENSE SERVICES, LLC, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________ )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Khadim Alkanani, a former United States soldier,
brought this action against Aegis Defense Services, LLC (“Aegis
LLC”) and Aegis Defence Services Limited (“Aegis UK”) alleging
various common law torts. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 54-71.) Aegis LLC has
moved unopposed for summary judgment arguing that it did not
exist at the time of the incident giving rise to the complaint
and, therefore, it is not responsible for the alleged acts.
(Aegis LLC’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mot.”) at 1.) Because
the motion is unopposed and Aegis LLC has shown that it did not
exist as a corporate entity at the time of the alleged incident,
Aegis LLC’s summary judgment motion will be granted.
DISCUSSION
To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must
show that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute
and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
-2-
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court
must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving party’s
favor and accept the nonmoving party’s evidence as true.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Even
when a summary judgment motion is unopposed, a court still must
determine whether the moving party is entitled to summary
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (“If the opposing party
does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be
entered against that party.” (emphasis added)). When a summary
judgment motion is supported by a statement of genuine issues of
material fact that is not disputed, the statement will be deemed
admitted in its entirety. See, e.g., Innovative Staffing
Solutions, Inc. v. Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Corp. I, Civil
Action No. 07-01075 (HHK), 2007 WL 4125424, at *1 (D.D.C.
Nov. 19, 2007).
Alkanani alleges that he was shot by unidentified Aegis
employees,1 who were at all relative times performing security
services on behalf of Aegis, during an intelligence mission in
Bagdad on June 3, 2005. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 43.) Alkanani asserts
several causes of actions against Aegis, including intentional
and negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent
1
The complaint treats Aegis LLC and Aegis UK collectively
as “Aegis” (Compl. ¶ 1) and does not distinguish between Aegis
LLC employees and Aegis UK employees.
-3-
hiring, training, and supervision. (Id. ¶¶ 58, 61, 67.)
Alkanani also asserts that Aegis failed to investigate and
reprimand its employees for the alleged shooting. (Id. ¶ 58.)
While a corporation is liable for the torts of its employees
if committed within the scope of employment, Keys v. Wash. Metro.
Area Transit Auth., 408 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2005), corporate
liability attaches only upon corporate existence. See Maytag
Corp. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 219 F.3d 587, 589 (7th
Cir. 2000) (stating that “corporate liability ends with the
corporation’s existence”). Further, under Delaware law, a
corporation does not exist until it files a certificate of
formation with the Secretary of State. “A limited liability
company is formed at the time of the filing of the initial
certificate of formation in the office of the Secretary of
State[.]” Del. Code. Ann. tit. 6, § 18-201(b).
It is undisputed that Aegis LLC filed its certificate of
formation with the Delaware Secretary of State on May 30, 2006.
(Def.’s Stmt. of Material Facts ¶ 1; Def.’s Mot., Ex. 1, Decl. of
Kristi Clemens ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) It also is undisputed that Aegis LLC
was not a party to the service contract awarded by the U.S.
Department of the Army to Aegis UK on May 25, 2004, and that
Aegis LLC did not provide security services under the contract.
(Def.’s Mot., Ex. 1, Decl. of Kristi Clemens ¶¶ 9-11.) Because
the plaintiff has not opposed the defendant’s motion for summary
-4-
judgment and Aegis LLC has presented undisputed evidence that it
was not formed as a corporation until nearly a year after the
alleged shooting, the defendant’s summary judgment motion will be
granted.2
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because Aegis LLC’s motion for summary judgment is unopposed
and Aegis LLC supports its motion with evidence that it did not
exist as a corporate entity at the time the alleged injuries took
place, summary judgment will be granted in Aegis LLC’s favor.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant Aegis Defense Services LLC’s motion
[12] for summary judgment be, and hereby is, GRANTED.
SIGNED this 8th day of February, 2010.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge
2
The complaint also names unidentified Aegis employees
and/or agents as defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24), but there is no
evidence that these employees have been served. However, because
the complaint alleges that the unidentified employees were at all
times acting within the scope of their employment and Aegis LLC
has shown that it did not exist at the time of the alleged
unlawful acts, claims against any unidentified employees who
purportedly worked for Aegis LLC will be dismissed sua sponte
under Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Peavey v.
Holder, 657 F. Supp. 2d 180, 182 n.1 (D.D.C. 2009).