United States of America ex rel. Hamid Lahijani v. Delta Uniforms, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-03290
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lahijani v. Delta Uniforms, Judge Gardephe ordered briefing on whether a guilty plea precludes Delta from contesting liability.
The United States, Delta Uniforms, Inc., and George Iloulian; the order required the parties to provide additional submissions before the court ruled on the Government’s summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In United States of America ex rel. Hamid (Joe) Lahijani v. Delta Uniforms, Inc., the United States asked for summary judgment against Delta Uniforms, Inc. and George Iloulian. The Government argued that Iloulian’s guilty plea in a related criminal case prevents both defendants from contesting liability in this case.
Delta Uniforms was not charged or convicted in the criminal case. The court explained that a prior decision generally cannot bind a nonparty unless that party was represented in the earlier proceeding or exercised some control over it. The Government’s filings did not explain Iloulian’s relationship with Delta Uniforms during the criminal proceedings or whether that relationship was enough to treat the defendants as legally connected for this purpose.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe did not decide the summary-judgment motion. He ordered the parties to submit materials addressing that issue by June 27, 2024.
The detailed version
- United States of America ex rel. Hamid Lahijani v. Delta Uniforms, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03290
- Paul Gardephe
- June 12, 2024
Background
This qui tam action involves the United States, as an intervening plaintiff, and relator Hamid (Joe) Lahijani against Delta Uniforms, Inc. and George Iloulian. The United States moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in its favor without a trial on the ground that Iloulian’s guilty plea in a related criminal case precluded both defendants from contesting liability in this action.
Issue
Delta Uniforms was not charged or convicted in the criminal case. The court considered whether collateral estoppel—the rule that can prevent a party from disputing an issue already decided in an earlier proceeding—could apply to Delta Uniforms as a nonparty to that criminal case. The court explained that such preclusion generally requires the nonparty to have been represented by a party in the earlier proceeding or to have exercised some actual control over that proceeding. The Second Circuit has recognized this type of legal connection, called privity, when the party in the earlier case acted as a fiduciary or organizational agent of the person against whom preclusion is asserted.
Court’s Action
The court found that the Government’s summary-judgment papers did not address Iloulian’s relationship with Delta Uniforms when the criminal case was litigated or explain whether that relationship established privity. The court did not grant or deny the summary-judgment motion. Instead, Judge Paul G. Gardephe ordered the parties to submit materials addressing the issue by June 27, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.