Tara J. Plochocki

The U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia recently denied a petition to recognize and enforce an international arbitration award against a government-owned airline on jurisdictional grounds.  The decision in UAB Skyroad Leasing Inc. v. OJSC Tajik Air, 20-cv-0763 (D.D.C. Jan. 26, 2021) illustrates the hurdles to enforcing an arbitral award against a foreign state-owned enterprise, even when that enterprise is engaged in pure commercial activities and controlled by the state. 

In the dying days of his administration, President Trump has moved to smash the civil service.  Through Executive Order 13957 (“EO 13957” or the “EO”), the President aims to carve out an entire new class of civil servants, sheering them from long-standing federal protections designed to create a professional, apolitical federal workforce.  Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss is investigating the scope of the Executive Order and possible remedies available to affected civil servants.

The Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) cannot be used to support petitions for discovery for use in private foreign commercial arbitrations, settling an issue that has lingered unresolved in the circuit since 2004. The new decision, In re Guo, puts the Second Circuit squarely at odds with recent decisions issued by other circuit courts, raising the possibility that the Supreme Court will take up the issue next session to resolve the split. While Guo does not impact the ability of parties to foreign public arbitrations and litigations to take § 1782(a) discovery, for now at least, parties to private foreign arbitrations may have to look to more favorable circuits outside New York for relief.

The First Department Appellate Division in New York recently issued a ruling that will make the recognition of foreign country money judgments more difficult in New York. Kate Toomey and Tara Plochocki summarize its impact.

Gul “is a prisoner of war — a war that has been over for many years,” attorney Tara Plochocki argued Monday in court for his legal team, comprising people from human rights group Reprieve and the Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss law firm. “If the rule of law means anything, [he] must be released.”

A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer argued Monday that the United States can kill its own citizens without judicial review when litigation would reveal state secrets.

"What the government seeks to do in this case represents a radical expansion of the concept of a 'state secret'," explained Tara Plochocki, a partner at Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC, representing Abdul Kareem. "The privilege has never been invoked to permit the government to bypass the Constitution in favour of summary execution, and we hope that the Court will not permit the government to do so here."

Kareem’s attorney, Tara Jordan Plochocki, argued the government was radically expanding sovereignty, domestically and abroad, allowed under state-secrets privilege. 

“Whether that’s in a parking lot in the United States or abroad in Syria, the government has claimed — for the first time ever in this case — that it has unfettered and unreviewable discretion to kill US citizens at will,” Plochocki said. 

“For the first time ever, a United States federal court ruled that the government may kill one of its citizens without providing him the information necessary to prove that he is being wrongly targeted and does not deserve to die,” attorney Tara J. Plochocki said.

Ms. Plochocki is quoted in the article as addressing the court saying, “We’re not asking for the court to revisit drone policy, we’re not taking a run at the drone program,” she says. “Plaintiffs [just] want an opportunity to be meaningfully heard, just as… if they were designated for economic sanctions or told that they couldn’t board a flight to Cleveland.”

“We are gratified that the court recognized that, as a U.S. citizen, Mr. Kareem has the right to be heard in court before his government can decide to kill him, and we look forward to these proceedings continuing to a final resolution,” said Tara J. Plochocki, partner with the Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss law firm.

Plaintiffs attorney Tara J. Plochocki likened the case instead to challenges from people who say they were wrongly placed on U.S. no-fly lists or hit with economic sanctions. The men were also represented by Reprieve, a human rights group based in London and New York City.

Plochocki argued that when Awlaki’s father tried to sue on his son’s behalf while he was still alive, another federal judge in Washington in 2010 ruled that nothing prevented the designated terrorist Awlaki from peacefully presenting himself at a U.S. embassy and asserting his rights in court.

“We’re taking [the judge] up on that offer,” Plochocki said, such as by asserting their innocence in a sworn affidavit, court filing, administrative hearing or other means.

Tara Plochocki of the firm Lewis Baach noted that her clients do not seek review of the legality of the drone program, and are only seeking narrow due-process relief afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act.

“Plaintiffs want an opportunity to be meaningfully heard,” she said.

Woodsford Litigation Funding, one of the leading global third party funders, has announced a funding facility agreement with Lewis Baach which ensures the firm can offer clients an expedited, one-stop arrangement for the financing of high value litigation and arbitration.

Lewis Baach is pleased to announce the release of “Getting the Deal Through:  Litigation Funding 2017,” which offers the first comprehensive overview of the laws and regulations governing litigation funding on a country-by-country basis. Lewis Baach attorneys David Liston, Alex Patchen and Tara Plochocki authored the chapter on the United States.