Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boyd v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

February 5, 2015

JOHN W. BOYD, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP et at., Defendants

Decided February 4, 2015

Page 154

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 155

For JOHN W. BOYD, JR., Plaintiff: Andre P. Barlow, Camelia Camille Mazard, Keith Bernard Lively, Robert W. Doyle, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEYS, DOYLE, BARLOW & MAZARD PLLC, Washington, DC.

For KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP, Defendant: Charles Davant, IV, John Kazar Villa, LEAD ATTORNEYS, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, DC.

For DENNIS M. GINGOLD, Defendant: Alan Lee Balaran, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN L. BALARAN, PLLC, Washington, DC.

Page 156

MEMORANDUM ORDER [Dkt. ##7, 11, 13]

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.

Before the Court are three motions. The first two motions, filed by defendants Dennis Gingold (" defendant G ingold" ) and Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP (" defendant Kilpatrick" ), request dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. See [Dkts. #7, 11]. The third motion, filed by plaintiff John W. Boyd Jr. (" Boyd" or " plaintiff" ), argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and requests that this action be remanded to the D.C. Superior Court. See [Dkt. #13]. Having reviewed the pleadings, supporting documents, and relevant case law, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for remand and DENIES defendants' motions to dismiss as moot.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association, fought for more than two decades to remedy discrimination against minority farmers. See Compl. ¶ ¶ 1, 10 [Dkt. #1], The facts of this particular case stem from his lobbying efforts on behalf of Native American class members in their discrimination suit against the federal government, Cobell v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 1:96-cv-01285-TFH (D.D.C. Dec. 7, 2009) (" Cobell " ). See Compl. ¶ 25. The class members in Cobell were represented by, among others, defendants Gingold and Kilpatrick. Compl. ¶ ¶ 12-14. In March 2010, plaintiff was asked by John Loving, a government relationship advisor at defendant Kilpatrick, to lobby in support of legislative funding for the Cobell settlement. Compl. ¶ ¶ 25-26. Plaintiff agreed and continued his lobbying efforts. See Compl. ¶ 31. Later that same month, the House of Representatives passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (" CRA" ), an appropriations bill that, if enacted, would provide settlement funds for Cobell class members. Compl. ¶ 30. In June 2010, plaintiff informed defendant Gingold " that he expected to be paid for his efforts to secure funding." Compl. ¶ 43. Defendant Gingold promised that " Mr. Boyd would be compensated," but did not specify " how much and when" plaintiff would be paid. Compl. ¶ 43. The CRA became law in December 2010. Compl. ¶ 4.

On May 6, 2014, plaintiff, a Virginia resident, filed suit against defendants in the D.C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.