Download Regular Type; Download Large Type; Read after the jump. Due in class on Wednesday, April 16.
Essay # 8: (Both Sections)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF THE STATE )
OF KUWAIT, )
Plaintiff )
v ) 24-cv-0525
JOSEPH MOHAMMAD NAFFA and )
NAFFA & ASSOCIATES, LLP., )
Defendants ) Filed: Nov. 10, 2024
Complaint
1. The Ministry of Defence of the State of Kuwait (“Ministry”) is a foreign governmental body organized within the executive branch of the government of the State of Kuwait. The Ministry implements Kuwait’s defense policy, governs all branches of Kuwait’s Armed Forces, and conducts business in the United States through its Defence Attache Office (“Office”). The Office is associated with the Kuwait Embassy in Washington, D.C. and headed by the Defense Attache (“Attache”).
2. Joseph Naffa (“Naffa”) is a citizen of Virginia.
3. Naffa & Associates, LLP (“Naffa & Associates”) is a limited liability partnership and sole proprietorship with a single partner, Joseph Naffa. It was established under the laws of the District of Columbia and has its principal place of business in Virginia.
* * *
5. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
* * *
7. In 2013, the Ministry authorized the Office to hire an American law firm to assist with its increased need for legal services.
8. The Office awarded a contract to Naffa and Naffa & Associates for legal services; the contract was for three years at an annual retainer of $ 45,000 per year.
9. In 2016, the Ministry, through the Office, entered a second agreement for legal services with Naffa and Naffa & Associates, increasing the annual retainer. The Officer paid a retainer of $ 65,000 per year in 2016, 2017, and 2018, and a retainer of $ 85,000 in 2019.
10. In 2020, the Ministry, through the Office, entered a third agreement with Naffa & Naffa & Associates. The Ministry paid Naffa a retainer of $ 85,000 per year in 2020 and 2021.
11. Naffa represented the Ministry in several real estate transactions in 2018. The Ministtry paid Naffa and Naffa & Associates $ 50,000 for those transactions.
12. As part of those real-estate transactions, Naffa and Naffa & Associates improperly retained $ 150,000 in credits that were owed to the Ministry. Although Naffa eventually returned this amount, the Ministry lost approximately $ 47,500 in interest for the time it was not in possession of the funds.
* * *
18. At the end of 2021, the Ministry, through the Office, asked Naffa to produce documentation demonstrating that he was licensed to practice law in the United States.
19. Naffa produced several graduate degrees from non-U.S. law schools and a membership card for the American Bar Association.
20. The Office investigated and learned that Naffa never passed a bar exam and was not licensed to practice law anywhere in the United States. It further found that Naffa & Associates, LLP was not an authorized legal partnership.
21. All contracts required Naffa to be a licensed attorney or a member of the bar. Because he is not licensed, he failed to perform the contracts as required.
22. There is joint-and-several liability against Naffa and Naffa & Associates.
* * *
Count I: Breach of Contract (v. Both Defendants): 2013 Agreement
Count II: Breach of Contract (v. Both Defendants): 2016 Agreement
Count III: Breach of Contract (v. Both Defendants): 2020 Agreement
Count IV: Tortious Conversion (v. Both Defendants): Real Estate Credits
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF THE STATE )
OF KUWAIT, )
Plaintiff )
v ) 24-cv-0525
JOSEPH MOHAMMAD NAFFA and )
NAFFA & ASSOCIATES, LLP., )
Defendants )
Answer to the Complaint
* * *
21. Defendant denies that the contracts required him to be a licensed attorney or member of a bar.
Affirmative Defenses
First Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations
1. The 2013 and 2016 Contracts are barred by the five-year limitations period.
Substantive Law
§ 8.01-246: Person actions based on contracts
A. Actions founded upon a contract shall be brought within the following number of years:
* * *
2. In actions on any contract that is in writing and signed, within five years.
28 U.S.C. § 1603: Definitions
(a) A “foreign state” includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency of a foreign state.
Jurisdictional Facts
1. Joseph Mohammad Naffa was born in the United Kingdom.
2. Naffa earned multiple law degrees from institutions outside the United States, including in England, Belgium, and The Netherlands.
3. In 2010, Naffa married a United States citizen, obtain Lawful Permanent Resident Status, and moved to the United States, purchasing a home in Washington, D.C.
4. In January 2023, Naffa and his wife purchased a home in Vienna, Virginia. The address of this home appeared as the primary address on Naffa’s 2023 and 2024 tax returns. He operates his business from an office in that Virginia home. They live in this home 52 weeks per year, except when on vacation.
5. Naffa and his wife sold the Washington, D.C. home in March 2023. They own no other property.
6. He holds a driver’s license from the Commonwealth of Virginia, issued in February 2023.
7. On November 5, 2024, Naffa obtained U.S. citizenship.
8. The facts alleged in the Complaint are true for purposes of jurisdiction.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF THE STATE )
OF KUWAIT, )
Plaintiff )
v ) 24-cv-0525
JOSEPH MOHAMMAD NAFFA and )
NAFFA & ASSOCIATES, LLP., )
Defendants ) Filed: Nov. 10, 2024
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but neither statutory element can be satisfied.
The complaint describes events occurring from 2013 through 2021. At the time of those events, Defendant Naffa was a Lawful Permanent Resident of the United States.
Plaintiff’s three breach of contract claims cannot succeed, as Plaintiff has winning defenses to them. The remaining potentially valid claim, Count IV (Conversion), seeks $ 47,500 in damages (the amount the Plaintiff lost in interest from Defendant’s delay in transferring the funds).
For Plaintiff, respond to the motion.
