Al Shimari, et al. v. CACI

At a Glance

Date Filed: 

June 30, 2008

Current Status 

On May 2, 2024, following trial and eight days of jury deliberations, Judge Brinkema declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked. The AP reported that a majority of jurors stated that they sided with the plaintiffs, but could not reach unanimity. The retrial will take place beginning on October 30, 2024.

Co-Counsel 

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Shereef Akeel of Akeel & Valentine, PLC

Client(s) 

Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari
Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili
Asa'ad Hamza Hanfoosh Zuba'e

Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid was formerly a client in the case.

Case Description 

Al Shimari v. CACI is a federal lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of four Iraqi torture victims against U.S.-based government contractor CACI International Inc. and CACI Premier Technology, Inc. (since the filing of the case, CACI International and one of the plaintiffs were dismissed from the lawsuit). The lawsuit asserts that CACI participated in illegal conduct, including torture, at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq where it was hired by the U.S. to provide interrogation services. The Center for Constitutional Rights' clients were all held at the “hard site” in Abu Ghraib prison in 2003-2004. This case is part of our effort to bring accountability for torture and other serious violations of international law arising out of the so-called “war on terror” and invasion of Iraq.

The lawsuit was originally brought against L-3 Services Incorporated (formerly Titan Corporation), CACI International Inc., and Timothy Dugan, a former employee of CACI.  CACI and L-3 Services were the U.S. government contractors responsible for interrogation and translation services, respectively, at Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities in Iraq. L-3 Services and Timothy Dugan were dismissed as defendants in the case in 2008, and the litigation has proceeded against CACI. 

The case, brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and federal question jurisdiction, brings claims arising from violations of U.S. and international law, including torture; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; war crimes; assault and battery; sexual assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent hiring and supervision; and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Through this action, the clients seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Our clients are Iraqis civilians who were ultimately released without ever being charged with a crime. They all continue to suffer from physical and mental injuries caused by the torture and other abuse they endured. Here’s a brief description of the acts to which they were subjected at the hands of CACI employees and certain government co-conspirators:

Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari was detained from 2003 until 2008, during which he was held at the Abu Ghraib “hard site” for about two months. While he was there, CACI and its co-conspirators tortured him in various ways: he was subjected to electric shocks, deprived of food, threatened by dogs, and kept naked while forced to engage in physical activities to the point of exhaustion. 

Asa’ad Hamza Hanfoosh Zuba’e was imprisoned at Abu Ghraib from 2003 until 2004. CACI and its co-conspirators tortured him while he was detained there by subjecting him to extremely hot and cold water, beating his genitals with a stick, and detaining him in a solitary cell in conditions of sensory deprivation for almost a full year.  

Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili, an Al Jazeera journalist, was imprisoned at the Abu Ghraib “hard site” for approximately two months. While he was there, CACI and its co-conspirators stripped him and kept him naked, threatened him with dogs, deprived him of food, beat him, and kept him in a solitary cell in conditions of sensory deprivation. See his interviews with Democracy Now! and BBC Witness.

Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid was dismissed from the case in February 2019. He was detained from 2003 until 2005, during which he was imprisoned at the Abu Ghraib “hard site” for about three months. While he was detained there, CACI and its co-conspirators tortured Mr. Rashid by placing him in stress positions for extended periods of time; humiliating him; depriving him of oxygen, food, and water; shooting him in the head with a taser gun; and by beating him so severely that he suffered broken limbs and vision loss. Mr. Rashid was forcibly subjected to sexual acts by a female as he was cuffed and shackled to cell bars. He was also forced to witness the rape of a female prisoner.

Read our factsheet about the case.

Case Timeline

October 30, 2024
Retrial in Eastern District of Virginia
October 30, 2024
Retrial in Eastern District of Virginia
October 17, 2024
Hearing on pre-trial motions
October 17, 2024
Hearing on pre-trial motions
September 27, 2024
Plaintiffs file motion in limine regarding "borrowed servant" defense
September 27, 2024
Plaintiffs file motion in limine regarding "borrowed servant" defense
CACI moves to strike the motion on September 30, 2024. Military law and policy experts and Professor Deborah DeMott file briefs of amici curiae in support of plaintiffs. CACI files its own motion in limine regarding the plaintiffs' analysis of the "borrowed servant" doctrine on October 4, 2024. The plaintiffs oppose CACI's motion to strike their motion in limine on October 8, 2024. The plaintiffs and CACI file oppositions to each other's motions in limine on October 11, 2024 and replies on October 15, 2024.
September 6, 2024
Plaintiffs and CACI file pre-trial motions
September 6, 2024
Plaintiffs and CACI file pre-trial motions
Oppositions are filed on September 20, 2024, and replies are filed on September 30, 2024.
July 3, 2024
Judge Brinkema orders retrial to begin on October 28, 2024 (later rescheduled to October 30)
July 3, 2024
Judge Brinkema orders retrial to begin on October 28, 2024 (later rescheduled to October 30)
June 14, 2024
Judge Brinkema grants motion for new trial and denies CACI's motion for judgment as a matter of law at hearing
June 14, 2024
Judge Brinkema grants motion for new trial and denies CACI's motion for judgment as a matter of law at hearing
May 16, 2024
Plaintiffs move for new trial; CACI moves for judgment as a matter of law
May 16, 2024
Plaintiffs move for new trial; CACI moves for judgment as a matter of law
Plaintiffs and CACI each file their opposition briefs on May 30, 2024 and their replies on June 5, 2024.
May 2, 2024
Judge declares mistrial
May 2, 2024
Judge declares mistrial
Following eight days of deliberations, the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict.
April 15 to May 2, 2024
Trial in Eastern District of Virginia
April 15 to May 2, 2024
Trial in Eastern District of Virginia
April 5, 2024
Hearing on pre-trial motions
April 5, 2024
Hearing on pre-trial motions
Parties discuss trial logistics and proceedings. Judge Brinkema denies CACI's motion to reconsider the denial of its motion to dismiss based on derivative sovereign immunity.
March 1, 2024
Hearing on pre-trial motions
March 1, 2024
Hearing on pre-trial motions
December 1, 2023
Hearing on pre-trial motions
December 1, 2023
Hearing on pre-trial motions
November 2, 2023
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denies CACI's petition for writ of mandamus
November 2, 2023
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denies CACI's petition for writ of mandamus
October 2, 2023
Judge Brinkema sets trial to begin April 15, 2024
October 2, 2023
Judge Brinkema sets trial to begin April 15, 2024
September 8, 2023
Status conference in district court
September 8, 2023
Status conference in district court
September 7, 2023
CACI files petition for writ of mandamus
September 7, 2023
CACI files petition for writ of mandamus
Plaintiffs file their answer on September 25, 2023.
August 25, 2023
Hearing on CACI's motion for 1292(b) certification for appeal; Judge Brinkema denies motion
August 25, 2023
Hearing on CACI's motion for 1292(b) certification for appeal; Judge Brinkema denies motion
August 9, 2023
CACI seeks 1292(b) certification for interlocutory appeal
August 9, 2023
CACI seeks 1292(b) certification for interlocutory appeal
Plaintiffs oppose CACI's motion on August 23, 2023, and CACI files its reply on August 24, 2023.
September 16, 2022
Hearing on CACI's further motion to dismiss in Alexandria, Virginia
September 16, 2022
Hearing on CACI's further motion to dismiss in Alexandria, Virginia
July 18, 2022

CACI files further motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

July 18, 2022

CACI files further motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

CACI files a further motion to dismiss based on the Supreme Court decisions Egbert v. Boule, Biden v. Texas, and Torres v. Texas Dep't of Public Safety. We file our opposition on August 10, 2022, and CACI files its reply on August 18, 2022.

September 10, 2021
Hearing on CACI's motion to dismiss in Alexandria, Virginia
September 10, 2021
Hearing on CACI's motion to dismiss in Alexandria, Virginia
Judge Brinkema discusses settlement efforts with the parties and orders plaintiffs to provide calculation of specific damages sought by each plaintiff in 2021. She hears argument on CACI's motion to dismiss, with a decision forthcoming.
July 23, 2021

CACI moves to dismiss case based on Supreme Court Nestlé v. Doe decision

July 23, 2021

CACI moves to dismiss case based on Supreme Court Nestlé v. Doe decision

Plaintiffs file their opposition on August 20, 2021, arguing that the "touch and concern" test in Kiobel, and the courts' application of it to this case, remain good law post-Nestlé, and that the plaintiffs' claims of aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit torture, war crimes, and cruel treatment are a permissible domestic application of the ATS. CACI files its reply on September 2, 2021.

June 28, 2021
Supreme Court denies CACI petition for certiorari
June 28, 2021
Supreme Court denies CACI petition for certiorari
August 26, 2020
Solicitor General files amicus brief in Supreme Court on behalf of U.S. government
August 26, 2020
Solicitor General files amicus brief in Supreme Court on behalf of U.S. government
Plaintiffs file their response to the U.S. amicus brief on September 8, 2020, urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari without further delay.
July 7, 2020
CACI files status report in Eastern District of Virginia
July 7, 2020
CACI files status report in Eastern District of Virginia
November 15, 2019
CACI petitions Supreme Court
November 15, 2019
CACI petitions Supreme Court
CACI files its petition for a writ of certiorari on November 15, 2019. We file our opposition on December 19, 2019. CACI files its reply on January 7, 2020. On January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court invites the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.
November 1, 2019
Case is stayed in Eastern District of Virginia pending petition to Supreme Court
November 1, 2019
Case is stayed in Eastern District of Virginia pending petition to Supreme Court
CACI moves to stay the case in the Eastern District of Virginia on October 25, 2019. Plaintiffs oppose on October 29, 2019, and the court grants the stay on November 1, 2019.
October 7, 2019
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects motion to stay mandate pending CACI's petition to Supreme Court
October 7, 2019
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects motion to stay mandate pending CACI's petition to Supreme Court
CACI files a motion to stay the mandate pending its petition for writ of certioriari on October 7, 2019, which the Fourth Circuit denies on October 11, 2019.
October 1, 2019
Fourth Circuit denies petition for rehearing en banc
October 1, 2019
Fourth Circuit denies petition for rehearing en banc
September 5, 2019
CACI files petition for rehearing en banc
September 5, 2019
CACI files petition for rehearing en banc
August 23, 2019
Fourth Circuit dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction
August 23, 2019
Fourth Circuit dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction
July 10, 2019
Oral argument in Fourth Circuit
July 10, 2019
Oral argument in Fourth Circuit
April 23, 2019
Appellate briefing in Fourth Circuit
April 23, 2019
Appellate briefing in Fourth Circuit
CACI files its appellate brief on April 23, 2019. The United States files a brief of amicus curiae on April 30, 2019. We file our appellate brief on May 14, 2019. Three briefs of amicus curiae are filed in support of our brief on May 21, 2019. CACI files its reply brief on May 24, 2019.
March 22, 2019
U.S. is dismissed as party to proceedings
March 22, 2019
U.S. is dismissed as party to proceedings
Judge Brinkema grants the U.S. government's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint on the breach of contract claim, and grants its motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims, thereby dismissing the U.S. government as a party to these proceedings. In her decision, Judge Brinkema also denies CACI's motion to dismiss the case based on derivative immunity.
March 4, 2019
CACI files petition for writ of mandamus to Fourth Circuit
March 4, 2019
CACI files petition for writ of mandamus to Fourth Circuit
The court denies the petition on March 27, 2019.
February 28, 2019
CACI files motion to dismiss based on derivative immunity
February 28, 2019
CACI files motion to dismiss based on derivative immunity
Our opposition is filed on March 14, 2019, and CACI files its reply on March 19, 2019.
February 27, 2019
Judge Brinkema denies CACI's motions to dismiss under state secrets privilege and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denies CACI's motion for summary judgment for Salah Al-Ejaili, Suhail Al Shimari, and Asa'ad Al-Zuba'e
February 27, 2019
Judge Brinkema denies CACI's motions to dismiss under state secrets privilege and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denies CACI's motion for summary judgment for Salah Al-Ejaili, Suhail Al Shimari, and Asa'ad Al-Zuba'e
The judge dismisses the motions from the bench during oral argument. The case will now proceed to trial on April 23, 2019 at 10:00 AM EST in Courtroom 700 of the federal district court for the eastern district of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia.
February 15, 2019
U.S. files motion for summary judgment against CACI
January 3, 2019
CACI files motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
January 3, 2019
CACI files motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Our opposition is filed on January 29, 2019, and CACI files its reply on February 8, 2019.
December 20, 2018
CACI files motion for summary judgment
December 20, 2018
CACI files motion for summary judgment
Our opposition is filed on January 22, 2019, and CACI files its reply on February 6, 2019.
December 20, 2018
CACI files motion to dismiss under state secrets privilege
December 20, 2018
CACI files motion to dismiss under state secrets privilege
Our opposition is filed on January 22, 2019, and CACI files its reply on February 6, 2019.
October 25, 2018
Trial is scheduled for April 2019 at final pre-trial conference
October 25, 2018
Trial is scheduled for April 2019 at final pre-trial conference
Judge Brinkema schedules trial to begin on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10 AM EST in Courtroom 700 of the federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia.
June 15, 2018

Judge Brinkema denies CACI’s motion to dismiss following Supreme Court Jesner decision

June 15, 2018

Judge Brinkema denies CACI’s motion to dismiss following Supreme Court Jesner decision

In her June 25, 2018 opinion, Judge Brinkema denies CACI's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' ATS claims, finding that Jesner v. Arab Bank only curtails ATS jurisdiction over foreign corporations. Judge Brinkema further finds that adjudication of the Abu Ghraib torture survivors' claims against a U.S. corporation raises no separation-of-powers or foreign relations concerns.

May 21, 2018

CACI files motion to dismiss case, citing recent Supreme Court decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank

May 21, 2018

CACI files motion to dismiss case, citing recent Supreme Court decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank

CCR files its opposition on June 4, 2018, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Jesner v. Arab Bank case does not foreclose plaintiffs’ claims of torture, war crimes and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment under the Alien Tort Statute against a domestic corporation. CACI files its reply on June 11, 2018.

March 14, 2018
U.S. files motion to dismiss CACI's third-party complaint
March 14, 2018
U.S. files motion to dismiss CACI's third-party complaint
CACI files its opposition on March 28, 2018, and the U.S. files its reply on April 5, 2018. A hearing is held April 12, 2018.
July 2017 - February 2018
Briefing and decision on CACI's motion to dismiss third amended complaint
July 2017 - February 2018
Briefing and decision on CACI's motion to dismiss third amended complaint
CACI files a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on July 19, 2017. We file our opposition, with exhibits, on August 18, 2017, and CACI files its reply on August 31, 2017. At the September 22, 2017 hearing, Judge Brinkema denies CACI's motion to dismiss from the bench. In her February 21, 2018 opinion, Judge Brinkema rules that the conduct our clients suffered in the Hard Site at Abu Ghraib constitutes torture, war crimes, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. She also rules that we have plausibly alleged that CACI employees conspired and aided and abetted to cause these Alien Tort Statute violations.
January 17, 2018
CACI answers third amended complaint and files third-party complaint against United States
January 17, 2018
CACI answers third amended complaint and files third-party complaint against United States
Plaintiffs move to strike the third-party complaint on February 7, 2018, which CACI opposes on February 21, 2018.
January 3, 2018
Hearing before magistrate
January 3, 2018
Hearing before magistrate
The parties file status reports in advance of the hearing on December 27, 2017.
June 28, 2017

Court rules that claims for torture; cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; and war crimes can be brought under Alien Tort Statute against private actors

June 28, 2017

Court rules that claims for torture; cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; and war crimes can be brought under Alien Tort Statute against private actors

February 9, 2017
Court order on plaintiff video-link depositions
February 9, 2017
Court order on plaintiff video-link depositions
Following the court’s ruling at the December 16, 2016 hearing that remaining plaintiff depositions could occur via video-link, the court issues an order on the modalities for plaintiff video-link depositions, which are held February 15-16, 2017.
January 17, 2017
District court briefing on applicable law
January 17, 2017
District court briefing on applicable law
CCR and CACI file briefs on applicable law in the district court on January 17, 2017, and the court dismisses the common law claims in the case.
December 16, 2016
Status conference in district court
December 16, 2016
Status conference in district court
Judge Brinkema schedules a status conference for December 16, 2016. CACI files a status report to the court on November 16, 2016, and CCR files its status report on December 7, 2016.
October 21, 2016
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates case
October 21, 2016
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates case
In a unanimous decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the district court's dismissal of the case on political question grounds. The court holds that the judiciary can review unlawful conduct, including torture, "irrespective whether that conduct occurred under the actual control of the military." In a concurring opinion, Judge Floyd confirms that "it is beyond the power of even the President to declare [torture] lawful."
October 21, 2016
Judge Lee of district court recuses himself from case; case reassigned to Judge Brinkema
October 21, 2016
Judge Lee of district court recuses himself from case; case reassigned to Judge Brinkema

Judge Lee issues the order of recusal sua sponte.

May 12, 2016
Oral argument is held before Judges Keenan, Floyd, and Thacker
September 28, 2015
Amicus briefs are submitted in support of CCR's clients
September 28, 2015
Amicus briefs are submitted in support of CCR's clients

Amicus briefs are submitted by professors of constitutional law and federal courts, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Méndez, retired military officers, human rights organizations, former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora, and survivors of gross human rights violations who have won ATS cases.  Government contractor trade associations and KBR file amicus briefs in support of CACI on October 30 and November 2, 2015.

September - November 2015
CCR appeals dismissal to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
September - November 2015
CCR appeals dismissal to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
CCR files our opening appellate brief on September 21, 2015. CACI files its opposition brief on October 26, 2015, and we file our reply on November 9, 2015.
June 18, 2015

District court dismisses case on political question grounds

June 18, 2015

District court dismisses case on political question grounds

Judge Lee dismisses the case, concluding that CACI’s actions were controlled by the U.S. military and that assessing torture and war crimes claims would require an impermissible review of the military’s judgment, and thus the issues in the case present a “political question” that the judiciary cannot appropriately answer.

November 2014 - February 2015

Briefing and hearing on political question doctrine

November 2014 - February 2015

Briefing and hearing on political question doctrine

CACI files a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the plaintiffs' claims raise political questions the judiciary cannot answer, on November 21, 2014. Plaintiffs file their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014, arguing that CACI was not under plenary military control, that hearing claims that private contractor CACI acted unlawfully does not implicate sensitive military decisions, and that there are judicially manageable standards in place, including to assess CACI’s conduct against the War Crimes and Anti-Torture statutes. CACI files its reply on January 2, 2015. Oral argument is heard on February 6, 2015. 

November 2014

Briefing on elements of Alien Tort Statute claims

November 2014

Briefing on elements of Alien Tort Statute claims

Plaintiffs file a brief setting out the elements of their war crimes, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment claims under the Alien Tort Statute on November 5, 2014.  The defendants file their brief on November 14, 2014.

June 30, 2014

Fourth Circuit vacates district court’s judgment and reinstates case

June 30, 2014

Fourth Circuit vacates district court’s judgment and reinstates case

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacates the district court's judgment and remands all the plaintiffs' claims for further proceedings on June 30, 2014.  The court holds that the case satisfies the Kiobel “touch and concern” test, finding that torture and other human rights violations committed by a U.S. corporation at a U.S.-controlled prison in a conspiracy with U.S. soldiers can be heard in a U.S. court under the ATS.

March 18, 2014

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral argument

March 18, 2014

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral argument

Oral argument is heard before Judges Keenan, Floyd and Cogburn in Richmond, Virginia.

October - December 2013

Appellate briefing

October - December 2013

Appellate briefing

Plaintiffs file their opening appeal brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 29, 2013. Plaintiffs argue that their claims, including war crimes and torture, brought against a U.S. corporation that U.S. military investigators had determined in 2004 conspired with court-martialed U.S. soldiers in “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” of detainees at Abu Ghraib in U.S.-occupied Iraq “touch and concern” the United States.  Six amicus briefs are filed in support of plaintiffs on November 5, 2013 by retired military officers; past United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Torture and current Rapporteur Juan Méndez; a group of human rights survivors who successfully sought redress in U.S. courts under the ATS, including Dolly Filártiga, plaintiff in the first modern use of the ATS to obtain accountability for human rights abuses; a group of civil procedure professors; international law and civil procedure scholars; and historians of international law. All argue that Al Shimari is not only permitted under Kiobel, but also that international law requires the U.S. to provide a forum for seeking accountability and redress for the torture and other serious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib.  CACI files its opening appeal brief on December 2, 2013.  Plaintiffs file their reply brief on December 16, 2013.

August 2013

Plaintiffs are ordered to pay $13,731.61 in costs to CACI

August 2013

Plaintiffs are ordered to pay $13,731.61 in costs to CACI

Defendants file a Bill of Costs, seeking payment of $15,580 from the plaintiffs, on August 2, 2013.  Plaintiffs file their opposition to CACI's Bill of Costs on August 12, 2013. Defendants file their reply on August 19, 2013.  On August 30, 2013, the defendants’ motion for Bill of Costs is granted, with plaintiffs ordered to pay $13,731.61.

June 26, 2013

Judge Lee dismisses plaintiffs' ATS and common law claims, thereby dismissing case

June 26, 2013

Judge Lee dismisses plaintiffs' ATS and common law claims, thereby dismissing case

The court hears CACI’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Alien Tort Statute claims in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., as well as to dismiss three of the plaintiffs' common law claims, on May 10, 2013. Judge Lee dismisses the plaintiffs' case on June 26, 2013, finding that the Alien Tort Statute cannot apply to violations occurring outside the United States, and that the remaining common law claims are barred because Iraqi law applies.  The district court narrowly interprets the “presumption against extraterritorial application” of the ATS set forth in Kiobel to foreclose claims arising in Iraq, disregarding the fact that CACI is a U.S.-based corporation, it is alleged to have conspired with U.S. soldiers to commit war crimes that were punished in U.S. courts martials, and the torture and war crimes occurred at a time when the United States exercised total jurisdiction and control over Abu Ghraib prison.  The Supreme Court held in Kiobel that the presumption could be displaced in cases that “touch and concern” the United States “with sufficient force.”

April - May 2013

Briefing on motion to dismiss common law claims

April - May 2013

Briefing on motion to dismiss common law claims

CACI files a motion to dismiss CCR's common law claims on April 29, 2013. CCR files our opposition on May 6, 2013. CACI files its reply on May 8, 2013.

April - May 2013

Briefing on reconsideration of Alien Tort Statute claims post-Kiobel

April - May 2013

Briefing on reconsideration of Alien Tort Statute claims post-Kiobel

CACI files a motion to dismiss CCR's ATS claims of war crimes, torture, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment on the basis of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum on April 24, 2013. CCR files our opposition on May 3, 2013, and CACI files its reply on May 8, 2013.

April - May 2013

Briefing on motion to dismiss conspiracy claims

April - May 2013

Briefing on motion to dismiss conspiracy claims

CACI files its motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims on April 15, 2013. CCR files our opposition on May 3, 2013. CACI files its reply on May 8, 2013.

April - May 2013

Briefing and argument regarding CACI's attempt to dismiss Baghdad plaintiffs as sanction for their inability to appear in U.S. for depositions

April - May 2013

Briefing and argument regarding CACI's attempt to dismiss Baghdad plaintiffs as sanction for their inability to appear in U.S. for depositions

The court hears CACI's motion to dismiss the three Baghdad-based plaintiffs on the grounds that are unable to appear in the U.S. for their depositions. The men had been granted visas to travel to the U.S. in February, but were prevented for unknown reasons from boarding their flight to the U.S. in March. CACI files its motion on April 5, 2013. The court hears argument at a motion hearing on April 12, 2013. CCR files our opposition on May 6, 2013. CACI files a supplemental memo in support of the motion for sanctions on May 22, 2013, and CCR files our opposition on May 24, 2013. The motion remains pending when Judge Lee issues his June 26, 2013 decision, and as CACI did not seek plaintiffs' depositions when discovery reopened in 2014, the issue is moot.

April 4, 2013

CCR files third amended complaint

April 4, 2013

CCR files third amended complaint

March 19, 2013

Judge Lee vacates 2008 order denying partial summary judgment (statute of limitations)

March 19, 2013

Judge Lee vacates 2008 order denying partial summary judgment (statute of limitations)

On March 19, 2013, Judge Lee grants CACI's motion for reconsideration of the 2008 order denying partial summary judgment, vacating the 2008 order and dismissing three of CCR's common law claims in the second amended complaint without prejudice.

February 2013

CACI compels plaintiff depositions

February 2013

CACI compels plaintiff depositions

CACI files a motion to compel plaintiff depositions on February 8, 2013. CCR files our opposition on February 13, 2013. Following a motion hearing, the court grants CACI’s motion to compel on February 14, 2013, requiring the plaintiffs to appear for depositions within thirty days.

February 1, 2013

CCR discloses expert reports

February 1, 2013

CCR discloses expert reports

CCR discloses expert reports on issues including what acts constitute torture; the duty of care owed to detainees under international humanitarian law; the significance of the physical, mental and emotional injuries alleged from the perspective of Islamic religious and legal teachings; and theories of social-psychological behavior in a prison setting such as Abu Ghraib.

January - March 2013

Briefing and decision on dismissing defendant CACI International and dismissing the conspiracy claims

January - March 2013

Briefing and decision on dismissing defendant CACI International and dismissing the conspiracy claims

Defendants CACI Premier Technology and CACI International file motions to dismiss the conspiracy claims in the plaintiffs' second amended complaint, as well as defendant CACI International, on January 14, 2013. Plaintiffs file their opposition to the motions on January 28 and 29, 2013, respectively.  Judge Lee grants the defendants' motion to dismiss CACI International, Inc. and grants without prejudice CACI Premier Technology's motion to dismiss conspiracy claims on March 8, 2013.

December 26, 2012

Plaintiffs file second amended complaint

December 26, 2012

Plaintiffs file second amended complaint

Plaintiffs file their second amended complaint.

November 2012 - February 2013

Briefing and hearing on defendant’s motion for reconsideration of district court's 2008 order denying partial summary judgment (statute of limitations)

November 2012 - February 2013

Briefing and hearing on defendant’s motion for reconsideration of district court's 2008 order denying partial summary judgment (statute of limitations)

Defendants file a motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying partial summary judgment based on statute of limitations on November 9, 2012. Plaintiffs file their opposition on November 20, 2012.  Defendants file their reply on November 26, 2012.  A hearing is held before Judge Lee on November 30, 2012.  Defendants file a memorandum regarding choice of law for the statute of limitations on January 17, 2013, to which plaintiffs file their opposition on January 31, and defendants file their reply on February 6, 2013.

November 1, 2012

Judge Lee reinstates Alien Tort Statute claims

November 1, 2012

Judge Lee reinstates Alien Tort Statute claims

At the conclusion of the motion hearing, Judge Lee reinstates all ATS claims of war crimes, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

October 2012

Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of Alien Tort Statute claims

October 2012

Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of Alien Tort Statute claims

Plaintiffs file a motion for reinstatement of the ATS claims on October 11, 2012, arguing that war crimes, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are all universally recognized violations of international law, and that corporations can be held liable under the ATS.  Defendants file their opposition to the motion on October 25, 2012, and plaintiffs file their reply on October 30, 2012.

May 11, 2012

En banc panel dismisses CACI's appeal and remands case to district court

May 11, 2012

En banc panel dismisses CACI's appeal and remands case to district court

The en banc panel, in an 11-3 decision, issues an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanding the case to the district court, in order to allow fact-finding to proceed.

November 2011 - January 2012

Rehearing en banc briefing and argument

November 2011 - January 2012

Rehearing en banc briefing and argument

On November 15, 2011, the Fourth Circuit invites the United States to file an amicus brief in the case before December 30, 2011.  CACI files its en banc opening brief on November 29, 2011.  Plaintiffs file their opposition brief on December 19, 2011, arguing first that the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, and then that there is no “law of war” immunity for torture, that CACI is not entitled to derivative absolute immunity, that state law cannot be wholly displaced through preemption or “battlefield immunity,” and that the political question doctrine does not bar the action.  On December 20, 2011, retired Army military officers, professors of Civil Procedure and Federal Courts, and international human rights organizations and experts file amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs on jurisdiction and preemption issues.  CACI files its reply brief on December 27, 2011.  The U.S. files its amicus brief on January 14, 2012, in which it agrees with the plaintiffs’ argument that the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction, and submits that the district court should reconsider the preemption argument under the “combatant activities exception” and that, inter alia, there should be no preemption for acts of torture.  CACI files its response to the U.S. amicus on January 20, 2012 and plaintiffs respond on January 24, 2012.  The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, hears argument on January 27, 2012.

November 22, 2011

District court denies CACI's motion for 1292(b) certification of 2009 order denying its motion to dismiss

November 22, 2011

District court denies CACI's motion for 1292(b) certification of 2009 order denying its motion to dismiss

In November 2011, just as briefing is beginning for the en banc rehearing in the Fourth Circuit, CACI files a motion for 1292(b) certification of the district court's 2009 order denying its motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs file their opposition to the motion on November 16, 2011, and CACI files its reply on the same date.  The district court denies the motion on November 22, 2011, affirming the plaintiffs' argument that it does not have jurisdiction over the case, as it is currently before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

November 8, 2011

Fourth Circuit grants plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc

November 8, 2011

Fourth Circuit grants plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc

Plaintiffs file a petition for rehearing en banc on October 5, 2011.  On October 6, 2011, the Fourth Circuit requests that the defendants respond, and the defendants file their response on October 17, 2011.  A majority of Fourth Circuit judges in active service and not disqualified grant the petition for rehearing en banc.

September 21, 2011

In 2-1 decision, Fourth Circuit reverses district court and orders case be dismissed

September 21, 2011

In 2-1 decision, Fourth Circuit reverses district court and orders case be dismissed

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Fourth Circuit reverses the district court and orders the case be dismissed.  Judges Paul V. Niemeyer and Dennis W. Shedd find the court has jurisdiction, and dismiss the case under a theory of “battlefield preemption.” Judge Robert B. King dissents, finding that the court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, and that the state law claims cannot be preempted.

March 11, 2011

Court issues stay pending Supreme Court decision regarding cert petition filed in Saleh v. Titan

March 11, 2011

Court issues stay pending Supreme Court decision regarding cert petition filed in Saleh v. Titan

The Fourth Circuit orders that the case be held in abeyance pending decision on the petition for certiorari filed in Saleh v Titan with the Supreme Court.

April 5 - October 26, 2010

Appellate briefing and argument

April 5 - October 26, 2010

Appellate briefing and argument

Defendants file their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 5, 2010.  In May 2010, private military contractor KBR is granted leave to file an amicus brief.  Plaintiffs file their response on June 14, 2010.  Defendants file their reply on July 1, 2010.  Judges Paul Niemeyer, Dennis W. Shedd and Robert B. King of the Fourth Circuit hear argument on October 26, 2010.

March 23, 2009 - February 23, 2010

CACI files notice of appeal with Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; plaintiffs seek to have appeal dismissed and file cross-appeal; briefing schedule set

March 23, 2009 - February 23, 2010

CACI files notice of appeal with Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; plaintiffs seek to have appeal dismissed and file cross-appeal; briefing schedule set

Defendants file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 23, 2009. Plaintiffs file a motion to dismiss CACI's appeal on April 28, 2009. The court suspends briefing pending resolution of the motion to dismiss on April 30, 2009. The court defers a ruling on the motion to dismiss pending assignment to a panel for review on the merits on November 16, 2009, and issues a briefing order. Plaintiffs file their notice of cross-appeal on November 30, 2009. The court issues a revised appellate briefing schedule, a briefing order on the cross-appeal, and an order consolidating the cases on December 2, 2009.  CACI files a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' cross-appeal on December 7, 2009.  On February 23, 2010, the court grants CACI's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' cross-appeal and issues a revised scheduling order.

March 18, 2009

District court denies defendants' motion to dismiss, in part

March 18, 2009

District court denies defendants' motion to dismiss, in part

Judge Lee denies the defendants' motion to dismiss, in part. In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Lee rejects CACI’s argument that the case presents a nonjusticiable political question; that government contractor interrogators are entitled to derivative absolute immunity; that the claims are preempted through a government contractor defense claimed under the “combatant activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act; and that the claims of respondent superior and conspiracy liability are properly pled. Judge Lee grants CACI’s motion in regard to the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), finding the ATS does not provide a sufficient basis to exercise jurisdiction for war crimes, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against government contractor civilian interrogators.

January 21, 2009

Order grants plaintiffs' motion for leave to rebut defendants' factual misrepresentations on motion to dismiss

January 21, 2009

Order grants plaintiffs' motion for leave to rebut defendants' factual misrepresentations on motion to dismiss

December 2008 - January 2009

Briefing and order regarding the Senate Armed Services Committee Report as supplemental authority

December 2008 - January 2009

Briefing and order regarding the Senate Armed Services Committee Report as supplemental authority

Defendants file a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum based on the Senate Armed Services Committee Report in support of their motion to dismiss on December 19, 2008.  Plaintiffs file their response on January 2, 2009 and defendants file their reply on January 8, 2009.  Judge Lee issues an order granting defendants' motion on January 14, 2009.

November 25, 2008

Judge Lee denies defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment based on statute of limitations

November 25, 2008

Judge Lee denies defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment based on statute of limitations

October - November 2008
Briefing and hearing on motion to dismiss amended complaint
October - November 2008
Briefing and hearing on motion to dismiss amended complaint

Defendants file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 2, 2008. Plaintiffs file their opposition on October 16, 2008.  Defendants file their reply on October 22, 2008.  A hearing is held before District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on October 24, 2008. Plaintiffs file a motion for leave to file a memorandum rebutting CACI’s factual misrepresentations on October 27, 2008, to which the defendants respond on October 29, 2008.  Plaintiffs file their reply on November 3, 2008.

October 2008

Briefing on motion for partial summary judgment based on statute of limitations

October 2008

Briefing on motion for partial summary judgment based on statute of limitations

Defendants file a motion for partial summary judgment based on the statute of limitations on October 10, 2008.  Plaintiffs file their opposition on October 21, 2008.  The defendants file their reply on October 27, 2008.

September 15, 2008

Plaintiffs file amended complaint

September 15, 2008

Plaintiffs file amended complaint

Plaintiffs file an amended complaint against CACI International, Inc. and CACI Premier Technology, Inc.

August - September 2008

CCR moves to dismiss claims against L-3 Services and Timothy Dugan

August - September 2008

CCR moves to dismiss claims against L-3 Services and Timothy Dugan

CCR moves to dismiss claims against L-3 Services and Timothy Dugan on August 20, 2008, and the claims are dismissed without prejudice on September 12, 2008.

August 7, 2008

Case transferred to Eastern District of Virginia

August 7, 2008

Case transferred to Eastern District of Virginia

The court grants defendants' motion to change venue. The case is transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia and assigned to Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.

June 30, 2008

CCR files complaint on behalf of four Iraqi torture victims

June 30, 2008

CCR files complaint on behalf of four Iraqi torture victims

CCR files a complaint on behalf of Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid, Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili, and Asa'ad Hamza Hanfoosh Zuba'e against Timothy Dugan, CACI International, Inc., CACI Premier Technology, Inc., and L-3 Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for Ohio, Southern District, Eastern Division.