Saleh v. Titan et al.

Synopsis

Saleh v. Titan is a federal lawsuit against private contractors CACI International Incorporated and Titan Corporation (now L-3 Communications Titan Group) that charges the companies with torture and other   heinous and illegal acts while they were providing interrogation and interpretation services, respectively at detention facilities in Iraq, including at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Status

On November 6, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson denied CACI's motion for summary judgment and ordered a jury trial against CACI. CACI is currently appealing this ruling in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In the same Order, Judge Robertson granted Titan's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case against Titan. Plaintiffs are concurrently appealing this ruling in the same appellate court.

Description

Saleh v. Titan was brought as a class action lawsuit against Titan Corporation and CACI International Inc., the U.S. government contractors at Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities in Iraq. It charges that defendants, through their employees including Stephen Stefanowiczof CACI International Inc., and Adel Nakhla and John Israel of Titan Corporation, directed and participated in illegal conduct at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq where CACI and Titan were hired by the U.S. to provide interrogation and interpretation services.

The suit, brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and federal question jurisdiction, charges defendants with violations of U.S. and international law as well as for torture; summary execution; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; enforced disappearance; arbitrary detention; war crimes; crimes against humanity; sexual assault, and battery. Plaintiffs also brought claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, which have since been dismissed. Although the ATS claims were dismissed in June 2006, Plaintiffs are currently appealing that ruling. The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and has since been transferred to the District of Columbia.

Among the heinous acts which the Plaintiffs were subjected to at the hands of the defendants and certain government officials co-conspirators were: rape and threats of rape and other forms of sexual assault; being forced to watch their father tortured and abused so badly that he died; repeated beatings, including beatings with chains, boots and other objects; forced nudity; hooding; being detained in isolation; being urinated on and otherwise humiliated; and being prevented from praying and otherwise abiding by their religious practices. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

The named plaintiff, Haidar Saleh, a Swedish citizen who was residing in Michigan at the time the suit was filed, who opposed the Ba’ath Party and was imprisoned and tortured under Saddam Hussein, in the Abu Ghraib prison. After being released from prison, Mr. Saleh fled from Iraq to Sweden. After the Hussein regime fell, he responded to the United States’ plea for expatriates to return and help rebuild Iraq and returned to Iraq with funds to invest and rebuild the country. Upon his arrival on or about September 25, 2003, he was detained and was again sent to the same Abu Ghraib prison where he had been tortured by Saddam Hussein.

The plaintiffs in this case are represented by Susan L. Burke, William T. O’Neil and Katherine Hawkins of Burke O’Neil LLC, of Philadelphia; Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, PLC, of Birmingham, Mich.
 

 

Timeline

On June 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Titan Corporation, CACI International Inc., Steven Stefanowicz (a CACI interrogator), Adel Nakhla (a Titan linguist) and John Israel (a Titan linguist), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

On July 30, 2004, plaintiffs filed a RICO case statement along with an amended complaint.

On September 10, 2004, defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On September 14, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction against CACI.

On October 20, 2004, CACI filed its opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.

On October 22, 2004, plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss.

On November 19, 2004, defendants filed their reply briefs.

In March 2005, the action was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia.

On June 10, 2005, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

On January 13, 2006, the order to transfer to the D.C. District Court was reaffirmed upon reconsideration by Judge Claude M. Hilton of Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Hilton found that the D.D.C. has personal jurisdiction under the RICO Act.

On March 22, 2006, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint.

On April 7, 2006, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 26, 2006, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge James Robertson denied CACI and Titan's motion to dismiss. In this decision, Judge Robertson denied defendants’ claims that this case should be dismissed under the political question doctrine and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the ATS and RICO.  He also found that personal jurisdiction was lacking over the individual named defendants.

On November 6, 2007, after having granted limited discovery on the “government contractor defense” issue following the filing of motions for summary judgment by the defendants, Judge Robertson denied CACI's motion for summary judgment and ordered a jury trial against CACI. Judge Robertson also, however, granted Titan's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the case against Titan.

On December 17, 2007, plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint.

On December 17, 2007, Judge Robertson granted CACI’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal.

On January 2, 2008, CACI filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to appeal Judge Robertson’s denial of their motion for summary judgment.

On January 14, 2008, CCR filed a motion in opposition to CACI’s petition to appeal.

On January 29, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to appeal Judge Robertson’s final judgment in favor of Titan.

On March 17, 2008, the U.S. District Court granted CACI’s petition to appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment.