Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-19-07127/USCOURTS-caDC-19-07127-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 19-7127 September Term, 2019

FILED ON: MAY 19, 2020

IOAN MICULA, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

v.

GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,

APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:17-cv-02332)

Before: ROGERS, GARLAND and WILKINS, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia and on the briefs of the parties. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.

CIR. R. 34(j). The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that

they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be

AFFIRMED.

The Micula brothers, Viorel and Ioan, and three affiliated corporations petitioned the

district court to confirm an arbitration award against the Government of Romania. The

district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the Miculas. Romania raised many

defenses below, but its appeal boils down to two procedural points. Separately, the

European Commission as amicus contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction. We

affirm.

A U.S. court lacks jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign unless an exception to

sovereign immunity applies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(a); 1604. As Romania now agrees, the

district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards. Id.

USCA Case #19-7127 Document #1843415 Filed: 05/19/2020 Page 1 of 2
-2-

§ 1605(a)(6). The European Commission questions whether Romania’s agreement to

arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union. But as the district court

carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after the underlying events here, so

the arbitration agreement applied. See Micula v. Gov’t of Rom., 404 F. Supp. 3d 265, 276-80

(D.D.C. 2019).1

The only arguments that Romania raises on appeal are unavailing. First, it contends

that the district court improperly resolved disputes of material fact. See Dist. No. 1 v. Liberty

Mar. Corp., 933 F.3d 751, 760 (D.C. Cir. 2019). But Romania fails to identify a single

question of fact resolved by the district court, pointing only to its determination of foreign

law and its conclusion that Romania forfeited an argument, both of which are questions of

law. See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 44.1 (determination of foreign law is a question of law).

Second, Romania argues that the district court “refused” to allow it to respond to the

motion for judgment on the pleadings. But the district court did not do that. Rather than

respond to the motion, Romania moved for an extension of time on the day its response was

due. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant Romania’s eleventhhour extension request, especially in light of the “confusion and unnecessary delay” that the

court found Romania’s previous, myriad filings had caused. Micula, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273;

see Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of D.C., 819 F.3d 476, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (reviewing

the refusal to grant an extension for abuse of discretion). Even if the district court had

converted the Miculas’ motion into one for summary judgment, as Romania contends it

should have, Romania was not entitled to a second chance to respond. The Miculas had

moved in the alternative for summary judgment; if Romania had an objection to summary

judgment, it could and should have made it then. See Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158, 168

(D.C. Cir. 2006).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any

timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b);

D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

 We do not consider the Commission’s other, non-jurisdictional arguments. See 1

Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 158 F.3d 1335, 1338 (D.C.

Cir. 1998) (“[W]e ordinarily do not entertain arguments not raised by parties.”).

USCA Case #19-7127 Document #1843415 Filed: 05/19/2020 Page 2 of 2