United States District Court, District of Columbia
Order Filed: August 7, 2013
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
For KHADIM ALKANANI, individual, Plaintiff: Andrea L. Moseley, LEAD ATTORNEY, DiMuroGinsberg PC, Alexandria, VA; Shereef H. Akeel, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC, Troy, MI.
For AEGIS DEFENSE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant: David W. DeBruin, David Andrew Handzo, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Matthew E. Price, PRO HAC VICE, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Washington, DC.
For AEGIS DEFENCE SERVICES LIMITED, Defendant: David Andrew Handzo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Matthew E. Price, PRO HAC VICE, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Washington, DC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Kay's August 7, 2013, Report and Recommendation addressing the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 47) filed by Defendant Aegis Defense Services, LLC (" Aegis LLC" ). (Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 61.)  Plaintiff Khadim Alkanani brought this action seeking to hold Aegis LLC and Aegis Defence Services Limited (" Aegis UK" ) and several unidentified Aegis employees and/or agents liable for injuries Plaintiff suffered when an unidentified Aegis UK security guard at a checkpoint in Iraq fired his weapon at Plaintiff's vehicle and struck Plaintiff's foot. ( See Compl., ECF No. 1; Report and Recommendation at 2.) Aegis LLC contended that there were no grounds to hold it liable for the actions of an employee of Aegis UK. (Report and Recommendation at 5.) In response, Plaintiff advanced three theories for establishing Aegis LLC's liability: (1) the alter ego theory; (2) the successor liability theory; and (3) the agency theory. ( Id. ) Plaintiff also sought additional discovery. ( Id. )
After considering the parties' motions in the course of a detailed Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Kay concluded that none of Plaintiff's theoretical bases for jurisdiction won the day, and recommended that this Court grant Aegis LLC's motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff's request for additional discovery. ( Id. at 12.)
The Report and Recommendation also advised the parties that under the provisions of Local Rule 72.3(b) of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, any party who objects to the Report and Recommendation must file a written objection with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party's receipt of the Report and Recommendation. (Report and Recommendation at 12.) As of this date--over one month after the Report and Recommendation was issued--no objections have been filed.
After consideration of the Magistrate Judge Kay's Report and Recommendation, the absence of any party's objections thereto, the entire record before the Court, and the applicable law, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Kay's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 61) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that in accordance with the Report and Recommendation, Defendant Aegis LLC's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that all claims against Aegis LLC are DISMISSED with prejudice.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ALAN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Khadim Alkanani (" Plaintiff" ) brought suit against Aegis Defense Services, LLC (" Aegis LLC" ), Aegis Defence Services Limited (" Aegis UK" ), and several unidentified Aegis employees and/or agents. Compl.  at 1. Two motions were referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation: 1) Defendant Aegis LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment  and 2) Defendant Aegis UK's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . Judge Richard W. Roberts Order . Aegis UK's Motion to Dismiss  will be addressed in a separate Report and Recommendation.
This Report and Recommendation addresses Aegis LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment  (" Def.'s Mot." ), Plaintiff's Reply in Opposition to Aegis LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment  (" Pl.'s Opp'n" ) (sealed materials at ), and Aegis LLC's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment  (" Def.'s Reply" ). The undersigned held a hearing regarding the parties' briefings on January 25, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Defendant Aegis LLC's Motion be granted.
On May 25, 2004, the U.S. Department of the Army awarded a Contract No. W911SO-04-C-003 (" Contract" ) to Aegis UK for the period from June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2007. Ex. 1 of Aegis UK's Mot. to Dismiss (" Aegis UK's Mot." ), Decl. of Jeffrey Day [48-1] (" Day Decl. Oct. 2012" ) at ¶ 6. Aegis UK negotiated and signed the Contract in the United Kingdom while representatives from the Department of Defense were based in Virginia. Id. at ¶ 8. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Aegis UK was to provide security-management services, protective services, and anti-terrorism support to various entities involved in reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Id. at ¶ 7.
On June 3, 2005, Plaintiff, a United States Soldier, was returning from an intelligence mission in Baghdad to the United States Military Facility (" Facility" ) at the Baghdad International Airport. Compl.  at ¶ 3. Plaintiff's vehicle approached a military checkpoint approximately one and a half miles from the Main Gate of the Facility. Id. at ¶ 6. Shortly after Plaintiff's vehicle traveled through the checkpoint, an unidentified Aegis UK security guard fired his weapon at ...