The Rocket Docket

Contract, not UCITA, Governs Transaction and Excludes Certain Claims

In Pilar Services, Inc. v. NCI Information, Inc., 2008 WL 2620172 (E.D. Va. June 30, 2008), the Court, faced with Cross-motions for Summary Judgment, granted the Defendant prime contractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Court determined that the parties’ contract, and not Virginia’s Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (“UCITA”), governed the relationship between the prime contractor and subcontractor.  Because the parties’ contract contained a pay-if-paid clause and the prime contractor has not been paid for the subcontractor’s purported services, no breach of contract occurred.  Even if the Court determined that  UCITA and not the parties’ agreement controlled, summary judgment was still appropriate, as the subcontractor suffered no damages.  Lastly, because the parties entered into an express contract governing the transaction, the subcontractor could not avail itself of certain remedies otherwise available under Virginia law.   

The Rocket Docket Featured in Legal Bisnow

The Rocket Docket was featured in yesterday's issue of Legal Bisnow, a daily, electronic newsletter published by Bisnow on Business.  The issue also features a story on Beth Nolan, George Washington University's new General Counsel.

Court Holds that Insurance Company not Required to Defend or Indemnify Contractor Alleged to Have Participated in Abu Ghraib Interrogation Abuse

Plaintiffs CACI International, Inc., CACI Inc.–Federal, CACI Premier Technology, Inc., and CACI N.V. (collectively “CACI”) filed a declaratory judgment action against defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul”), seeking a declaration that, under its general commercial insurance policy, St. Paul was obligated to defend CACI in two pending lawsuits brought by Iraqi nationals claiming that they were abused and tortured by CACI employees.  St. Paul denied any duty to defend or indemnify CACI, arguing that the insurance policy expressly denied coverage for the conduct alleged in those lawsuits.  The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on St. Paul’s duty to defend.  The Court ultimately denied CACI’s motion and granted St. Paul’s motion, relieving St. Paul from the duty to defend/indemnify CACI.  CACI International v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 2008 WL 2890881 (E.D. Va. July 14, 2008).

Congressman Jefferson’s Motion to Dismiss Denied

William J. Jefferson, a sitting member of the United States House of Representatives, was charged with a sixteen-count indictment alleging a variety of crimes including bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud, foreign corrupt practices, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and racketeering.  These charges are currently pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division).  Congressman Jefferson filed a motion to dismiss Counts 5–10 of the Indictment which charge the Congressman with depriving citizens and the House of Representatives of his honest services by wire fraud.  The Congressman’s motion to dismiss argued that the Indictment failed to allege the requisite elements of an honest services wire fraud as required by Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  In the alternative, the Congressman argued that the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (1988) was unconstitutional.  In a July 8, 2008 decision, the Court rejected both arguments and denied the Congressman’s motion.  United States v. Jefferson, 2008 WL 2721262 (E.D. Va. July 8, 2008).