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.

In re Arbitration of Certain Controversies between

United States District Court, District of Columbia

April 13, 2017

In the Matter of the Arbitration of Certain Controversies between SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, and THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Gladys Kessler United States District Judge.

         On September 22, 2016, the Greek Supreme Court ruled in favor of Leidos in this long-running litigation. On December 2, 2016, the Court Ordered the Parties to submit their positions as to what, if anything, this Court should do given the fact that the Greek Supreme Court had reached a final decision [Dkt. No. 49]. On December 16, 2016, Petitioner submitted a Position Brief as to the Impact on Its Arbitration Award Enforcement Petition of Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic's Decision [Dkt. No. 51 ]. On the same date, Respondent submitted its Position Statement that this Court should deny the Petitioner's request for enforcement of the decision of the Greek j Supreme Court [Dkt. No. 52].

         On January 5, 2017, this Court issued an Order [Dkt. No. 53] and Memorandum Opinion [Dkt. No. 54]. The Order confirms the Arbitral Award of the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration ("ICC") issued in favor of Petitioner, Leidos, Inc. (formerly Science Applications International Corporation) and against the Hellenic Republic. On January 6, 2017, the Clerk of Court issued a Civil Judgment Form AO 450 [Dkt. No. 55], pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, to enter Judgment in the action, based on the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order.

         Petitioner now seeks, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) and/or 59(e) to correct the "clerical mistake" or "mistakes arising from oversight or omission" in the entry of Judgment prepared by the Clerk of Court and entered on the docket on January 6, 2017 [Dkt. No. 56]. Specifically, Leidos now requests that the entry of Judgment be corrected to add the following relief which the Court granted Leidos when it decided to confirm the award in its entirety.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR RELIEF

         A. Rule 60(a)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that "the Court may correct a clerical mistake or mistakes arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record." A judgment can be corrected so that it conforms to the "contemporaneous intent of the Court." Jackson v. Jackson. 276 F.2d 501, 502 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

         B. Rule 60(b)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits relief for reasons set forth in (b)(1)-(5), and - most importantly ~ ending with 60(b)(6) for "any other reason that justifies relief."

         C. Rule 59(e)

         Rule 59(e) is appropriate where the district court finds that there is a "need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."

         II. LEIDOS HAS NOT WAIVED THE RELIEF IT SEEKS

         Respondent argues at great length that Leidos has waived its claims as to: 1) its request to have the judgment stated in dollars rather than Euros; and 2) its request for pre-judgment interest at 6% and post-judgment statutory interest on the $ 162, 500 that was awarded as costs. Respondent is correct that Leidos expressly asked, at a much earlier point in this long-running litigation, that the amount of Judgment (other than the amount awarded as costs) be stated in Euros. However, the fact that Leidos asked for the Judgment to be stated in Euros at that time does not decide the issue at this late date.

         Leidos' request to have the foreign currency amount of the judgment converted into U.S. dollars was not waived. Rule 59(e) clearly says that it may not be used by a "losing party... to raise new issues that could have been raised previously." Kattan By Thomas v. D.C.. 995 F.2d 274, 276 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). Given the fact that Leidos is not a losing party, it is not precluded from ...


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.