UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
MBI GR OUP , INC., etal., P lai nt iffs,

v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 07 -0 63 7 ( JD B) CREDIT F ONCIER DU CAM EROUN, et al.,
De fend ant s.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION Pla int if fs MB IGr ou

p, I nc . a nd At lanti c Gr ou

p, SCI (c oll e c tiv e ly , " pla int if

fs " ) f ile d s uit
a g a i n s tC r e d i tF o n c i e r

d uC am e r o u n( " C F C " ) an d th e R e p u b l i c o f C am e r o o n( c o l l e c t i v e l y, "de fenda nts") se ekingdamag es for brea ch of c ontrac t, fraud, misre prese ntation, intentional interfe renc e with contra ct, and misappropr iation of trade secr ets and propr ietary information. Th e c on tr ov e rs y

ari se s o ut o f a

n a g re e me nt t

hat pl a int if

fs wo uld c on str uc t a se ri e s o f a ff

or da ble housing pr ojects in Cameroon, w ith CFC providing the la nd and fundingfor that initiative. As pla int if fs wo uld have it, the de a l w a s sc utt le d b y CF C and Came ro on

wh e n p la int if

fs re fu se d to de liv e r b ri be s d e mand e d b y c e rt a in o ff

ic ia ls w ith in t

he g ov e rnme nt o f C ame ro on . D e fe nd ants deny the ac cusations of bribe ry and insist that there wa s no binding a g ree ment to beg in with. On Se pte mbe r 2 6, 20 07 , d e fe nd ants fi le d a mot ion to d ism iss , a

rguin g that th is c a se should be dismissed on forum non convenie ns g rounds. They also claimed that this C ourt lacke d p er s o n al an d

s u b j ec tm at t er

j u ri s d i ct i o n , an d

th at d ef en d an t s we re i m mun e u n d er th e F o re i gn Sovereig n I mmuniti es Ac t, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611. Pl aintiffs filed a motion for jurisdictional discovery , and both motions were f ully briefe d.-2-

There afte r, the Court g rante d defe ndants' motion on forum non conveniens grounds. See MBI Group, Inc. v. Credit F oncier du Cameroun, 558 F . Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2008). The Court applied a thr ee- step test, first deter mining that an a dequate alternative forum existed and then ba lanc ingpr ivate and

pu bli c int e re st f

a c tor s. Se e id. a t 28 -3 6. Th e Court c on sid e re d p la int if

fs '
ar gu m en tt h at t h e C am er o o n i an co u rt s wo u l d n o tp ro v i d e p l ai n t i ff

s wi tha f ai r h ea ri n g. Al th o u gh the Court found plaintiffs' argument unavailing , see id. at 28-31, " in an abunda nce of caution and to avoid any

potential undue pre

judice to plaintiffs, the Court . . . condition[ed] dismiss al upon defe ndants' submitt ing to jurisdiction in Cameroon a nd on the Cameroonia

n courts' acc eptanc e of the ca se," id. at 31. The Court we ighe d the private and public intere st factor s, see id. at 32- 36, concludingthat "[t]he contacts with the United States ar e simply insufficient to over come the power ful showing that Cameroon is the fa r more a ppropriate forum to hea

r this matter," id. at 36. Th e Court

did no t a dd re ss d e fe nd ants ' oth e r j ur isd ic tio na l argume nts and de nie d p la int if

fs ' motion for jurisdictional discovery . See id. Two we eks later , on J une 24, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal beca use the Camer oonian cour ts had not acc epted the c ase. A ccor ding to plaintiffs, the y submitt ed their c ase f

or filing in Cameroon on June 24, 2008 and wer e informe d that they wer e require d to pay

a fe e of f ive per cent of

the amount claimed f

or the c ase to be "a cce pted for filing." Dec l. of J ules Nkana ¶ 1, 4 (attached a s Ex . A to Pls.' Renew ed Mot. to Vac ate Dismissal [dkt . e nt. # 5 4]) . B e c a

us e pla int if

fs c la ime d d ama g e s o f $ 50 0 mi lli on -- a s th e y did in t he ir
c omp la int be fo re thi s Co ur

t - - t he y we re re qu ir e d to pa

y a fe e of ne arl y $2 5 mi lli on

fo r t he c a se to p ro c e e d. Rathe r t

ha n c ha lle ng ingthe fi lin g fe e a s e xce ssi ve or e rr on e ou s, pla int if

fs so ug ht t o
va c a te thi s Co ur

t' s o rd e r t hat r e qu ir e d th e m to uti lize the Came ro on ian c ourt .-3-

Def endants c ountere d that the $25 million fee had be en er roneously calc ulated by

the Cameroonian c ourt' s clerk. See Def s.' Opp' n at 6 [dkt. ent. # 28] . They maintained that such f

ees
are subject to court r eview a nd that plaintiffs had made no eff ort to secur e such r eview. A nd althoug h plaintiffs did not seek re view of the filing f ee, de fenda

nts did -- and the Came roonian Hig h Court scheduled a

hear ing on this issue for

J uly 23, 2008. Plaintiffs did not appear f or the hear ing in Came roon on Jul y 23, and the he aringwas a djourned until Aug ust 27, 2008. Defs.' Sur. at 8 [dkt. ent. # 39] . Plaintiffs ag ain did not appea r, and the hear ing w as ag ain adjourne d, this ti me to October

22, 2008. I d. On Octobe r 20, 2008, this Court defer red r uling on plaintiffs' motion to vacate dismissal but cautioned that plaintiffs w ere require d to prosecute their ac tion in C amer oon in good f aith: Plaintiffs' r efusa l to participate is not the same as the Camer oonian courts' ref usal to acc ept the ca se. Implicit in t his Court's Or der w as a command that plaintiffs prosec ute their c laims in the Cameroonian c ourts in good f aith. Whatever the merits of plaintiffs' arguments that the deposit proce dures will ultimately bar the Cameroonia

n courts' acc eptanc e of the case , the Hig h Court has, in fac t, provided plaintiffs with an oppor tunity to be hea rd. Pla int if fs c ann ot i g no re that op po rt un ity and e xpe c t th is C ourt

to fi nd that th e Came ro on ian c ourt s d o n ot p ro vid e an a de qu a te alternative forum. I f plaintiffs par ticipate in the Camer oonian proce eding s in good f

aith and the Hig h Court refuse s to acc ept the c a se wi tho ut p ay

me nt o f a pr oh ibi tiv e ly

larg e de po sit , th e n th is Court will further c onsider plaintiffs' motions t o vacate and rec onsider. October 20, 2008 Orde r at 2 [dkt. ent. # 46]
. Pur su ant t o th is C ou

rt ' s o rd e r, pla int if

fs did a pp e ar a t th e Oc tob e r 2 2, 20 08 he ari ngin Cameroon. Af

ter a ppear ing at the hear ing, pla intiffs filed a submission with the Cameroonian Hi ghC o u rt o nNo v em b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 8
. Bu tra th er

th an s ee k i n g t o p er s u ad e t h e C am er o o n i an Hi gh Court that its case could pr ocee d in Cameroon, plaintiffs a sked the c ourt to find, inter alia, " that-4-

bring ing a

leg al proc eedingis the exclusive business of the plaintiff within a spec ific for mal leg al framework a

nd at his choice and not that of the de fenda nt." See Pls.' Submissi ons to High Court (attac hed as Ex. A to Defs.' Fe b. 19, 2009 Status Rpt . [dkt . ent. # 48]). Defe ndants, meanwhile, argued that the Hig h Court could revie w and r educe the cler k' s filing f

ee unde r Camer oonian law. See De fs.' Submis sions to High Court (attached a s Ex . G to Pls.' Rep. [dkt. ent. # 58] ). The Cameroonian H igh Court he ard or al ar g ument from the pa rties on Dec ember

10, 2008. On J anuar

y 14, 2009, the Cameroonia n Hig h Court delivere d judgme nt orally in open court, " [d] ecla

r[ing] the writ by

plaintiffs inadmissible for non-pa y ment of cour

t deposit and nonre tur n o f t he or ig ina l c op y

of the wr it o f s umm on s. " Ex. B to D e fs .' F e b. 19 , 2 00 9 St a tus Rpt
. [dkt . ent. # 48]. On March 31, 2009, the Hig h Court issued its written opinion. S ee E x . E to Pls.' Renewe d Mot. to Vacate [dkt. ent. # 54] . The Hig h Court reiterated its earlier oral c onclusion, finding that "in spite of the numerous postponements . . . , the plaintiffs a bstained fr om producingthe orig inal of the summons, the introductory act f or a tria l by

which they

drewthe defe ndants befor e this Court, and to pay the re quired de posit." I d. at 44. Henc e, the Hig h Court "de clar e[d] the ac tion of the petitioner inadmissible for f ailure to make a deposit and to file the orig inal of the summons." I d. Now bef ore the Court is plainti ffs' rene wed motion to vacate dismissal based on the Came ro on ian H ig h Co ur

t' s d ism iss a l of

pla int if fs ' c a se . Pl a int if

fs a lso a sk

thi s Co ur t to
rec onsider its analy sis of the private a nd public interests at stake . The motion is fully briefe d and ripe for resolution.-5- AN AL YSI S I. Adequacy of

Cam eroonian Courts I mplicit in t his Court's dismissal on forum non conve niens g rounds was a command that plaintiffs prosec ute their a ction in Cameroon in g ood faith. See O ctober 20, 2008 Orde r at 2; see al s o I nre Br i d ges t o n e/ Fi re s t o n e, 4 2 0 F. 3 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 5 -0 7 (7 thC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o l d i n g th at a p l ai n t i ff 's failure to prosecute its case in Mexico in good f aith, thus resulting in dismissal of its case by the Mexi can c ourts, would not warr ant re openinga ca se dismissed on forum non conve niens g rounds). He re, onc e it beca me appa rent to this Court that plaintiffs were ignor ing le g al options available to them in Cameroon, the Court explicitl y cautioned that plaintiffs could not expect their complaints about the de ficienc ies of the Came roonian judicial sy stem to carr y the day absent a g ood faith prose cution of their a ction there . See Oc tober 20, 2008 Or der at 2. Nonethele ss, on the rec ord now be fore the Court, it is clear that de spite the Octobe r 20 orde r, pla int if fs have a t e ve ry

ste p o f t he wa y imp e de d th e Came ro on ian c ourt s' a bil ity to c on sid e r t

he ir
case . As discussed above , two wee ks after this Court first dis missed this case, plaintiffs filed suit in C amer oon and we re told by the cler k that their ca se would only be ac cepte d upon pay

ment of a $25 million fee. N kana D ecl. ¶ ¶ 1, 4. That ve ry

same da y -- without see king r eview of the cler k' s fee deter

mination or appar ently

even pa using to c onsider that cour se -- plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate in this Court. Subsequently , afte r def endants sec ured a

hear ing be fore the Cameroonian H igh Court to conside r the fe e issue, plaintiffs fa iled to appea r at succ essive hear ings. I

ndeed, not until this Court ordered pla intiffs to appea r bef ore the Cameroonian c ourt did they do so. And eve n then plaintiffs continued to re sist procee ding in the Cameroonian-6-

c ourt s. Th e pa

rt ie s' re c e nt f

ili ng s sh owtha

t a ft e r t his Court e xplic itl y

re min de d p la int if

fs of the ir ob lig a tio n to pr oc e e d in

g oo d f a ith , p la int if

fs so ug ht t o te rm inate , n ot p ro se c ute , th e ir c a se in Came ro on . T he ir

wr itt e n s ub mis sio ns to t

he Came ro on ian H ig h Co ur t ur g e d th e c ourt

to d ism iss the ac tion, arguing " that bring ing a leg al proc eedingis the exclusive business of the plaintiff . . . and not that of the de fenda nt." See Pls.' Submissi ons to High Court. Plaintiffs re minded the Cameroonian H igh Court that e very civil case has two threshold re quirements -- filing a n orig inal summons and paying a

deposit. I d. Be cause they had not satisfied e ither re quirement, plaintiffs argued, their c ase must be dismissed. In eff ect, then, pla intiffs were seekingto have their own action bar red. Plaintiffs' a ctions sugg est a bold and r eckle ss bad fa ith. Pl aintiffs explain their behavior in two way s. First, they

contend that the substantive a rguments in favor of

reduc ing the filing f

ee
we re , in fa c t, p re se nte d to the Came ro on ian c ourt . A s p la int if fs wo uld have it, the pr oc e e din g s in Came ro on

we re e sse nti a lly

a mir ro r i ma g e of

ho w this Court

e nv isi on e d th e m - - w ithde fe nd ants arguing in f

avor of reduc ing the filing f

ee a nd plaintiffs arguing a g ainst it. Thus, plainti ffs maintain, the Cameroonia n Hig h Court's dismissal constitutes a re jection of de fenda

nts' position that a lower

filing f ee w as prope r (or

at least possible) unde r Camer oon' s proce dural c ode. B ut p l ai n t i ff s ' ar gu m en td o es n o tget t h em v ery fa r. Ind i s m i s s i n g th e c as e, th e C am er o o n i an Hi gh Court did not address def endants' arguments about reduc ing or defe rringthe filing fee . Instead, the cour t rested its holding on pla intiffs' failure to comply with threshold proce dural require ments. See Pls.' Ex. E. Courts -- whethe r in Cameroon or in the United States -- c annot forc e a pla intiff to adher e to such re quirements. I f, for example, a plaintiff in a U.S. cour t-7-

ref used to serve proce ss on the defe ndant, then the c ourt would have no choice but to dism iss the
case . See F ed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Si milarly , althoug h U.S. courts per mit fili ng fee s to be reduc ed for plaintiffs w ithout adequate f inancial mea

ns, a U.S. court c annot re quire a plaintiff to file the application nee ded for

in forma pa

uperis status. Henc e, it comes a s no surprise to this Court that the Came ro on ian H ig h Co ur t w ou ld f ind it n e c e ssa

ry to d ism iss the c a se ba se d o n p la int if fs '
re fu sa l to c omp ly

wi th t hr e sh old pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e me nts . Second, plaintiffs point out that they believe that the filing f

ee c ould not have bee n
re du c e d o r d e fe rr e d, so the y sh ou ld n ot b e e xpe c te d to have argue d in fa vo r o f t hat po sit ion

in Came ro on . E a c h s ide ha s su bmi tte d nume ro us de c lara tio ns fr om C ame ro on ian la wye rs in support of their view

as to whethe r plaintiffs could have soug ht reviewof the $25 million filing fee . This Court is i ll-suited to weig h the re lative merits of e ach pa rty ' s interpre tation of Cameroon' s civil procedur e code and to come to a definitive conc lusion. But a close analy sis of the pa rt ie s' de c laratio ns and

the re le va

nt p ro vis ion

of Came ro on ' s c od e re ve a ls t hat de fe nd ants appea r to have a color able a

rgument that a portion of the f iling fe e could have bee n reduc ed or de fe rr e d. Ar

tic le 24 of

Came ro on ' s c ivi l pr oc e dure c od e state s in pe rt ine nt p art : Ex cept f or ca ses of leg al aid, the c laimant shall, befor e the commence ment of any

proce eding s, be bound to pay a suff icient deposit at the re g istry

of the c ourt he intends to seize to g uara ntee the pay ment of costs, including stamp duty reg istration. An additional amount may

be re quested if in the c ourse of the pr oc e e din g s it

be c ome s a

pp are nt t hat th e amou

nt w a s in su ff

ic ie nt . . . . I f pay ment is not made, or in the ca se of dispute, the a mount of the deposit shall be set by order of the Preside nt of the Court, upon t h e s i mp l e ap p l i ca t i o no f t h e C l erk , o th erwi s e t h e c as e s h al l n o tgo forwa rd. Plaintiffs do not contend, nor could they , that they ever challeng ed the c lerk' s initi al de te rm inatio n r e qu ir inga $2 5 mi lli on

de po sit . Ins te a d, the y

imm e diate ly

fi le d a mot ion in t his-8-

C o u rt d ec ry i n g t h e c l erk 's ac t i o n s . Bu tAr t i cl e 2 4 p l ai n l y co n t em p l at es th at th e c l erk 's deter mination is subj ect to re view. See Art. 24 (" I f pay ment is not made, or in the ca se of dispute, the amount of the de posit shall be set by order of the Preside nt of the Court, upon the simple application of the Clerk . . . ." ). More over, pla intiffs' own experts appea r to rec og nize that the deposit has seve ral c omponents and that a por tion of the deposit may

be exempted or de fe rr e d. On

the on e ha

nd , th e re are " re g istry

fe e s, " wh ic h c ann ot b e a lte re d o r d e fe rr e d. De c l. of Tehg e Hott and Ma ssot Endalle at ¶¶ 20-21 (attached a s Ex . K to Pls.' Rep. [dkt. ent. #58] ). Acc ording to defe ndants, this fee is appr ox imately $120. See Second D ecl. of Aker e T. Muna ¶ 1 9 ( a tta c he d to De fs .' Sur . [dk t. e nt. # 3 9]) . O n th e oth e r h and , th e re are " re g ist ratio n a nd sta mp duty fee s." See Hott-Endalle De cl. ¶ 20. Ac cordingto plaintiffs' own experts, the provisions of Ar tic le 24 " c le arl y

pr e sc ri be that e ve n if

a phy sic a l pe rs on

or c or po ra te bo dy g ov e rn e d b y

pr ivate law or public la

w is exempted from pay

ment of re g istration and stamp duty fee s, the Reg istrar may alway s require him to pay reg istry fee s for the matter he intends to file be fore the cour t to be
e nr oll e d o n th e c a

us e lis t." I d. ¶ 2 1. I n th is, pla int if fs ' e xpe rt s a

pp e ar t o a g re e wi th d e fe nd ants ' experts, who argue that stamp duty fee s may be re duced or

at least de fer

red. See Second Muna Dec l. at ¶¶ 6- 10. And, at lea st acc ordingto defe ndants' experts, the reg istry fee s might only

be $1 20 . I d. a t ¶

19 . T his Court

ne e d n ot d e c ide wh e the r o r n ot d e fe nd ants ' argume nts wo uld ult imate ly

c arr y the da y in C ame ro on . It su ff

ic e s th a t de fe nd ants ' argume nts are no t so la c kin g in merit as to excuse plaintiffs' duty to proce ed in g ood faith in Cameroon in a n attempt to reduc e the c le rk ' s in iti a l de te rm inatio n o f a $2 5 mi lli on

de po sit
. I n sum, the blame for

plaintiffs' case beingdismiss ed by the Cameroonia

n court must be place d on plaintiffs themselves. De fenda nts cannot be f

aulted despite pla intiffs' ear lier-9-

contention that def

endants would be able to pre vent this case f rom proce edingin Cameroon. As de fe nd ants po int

out, t he ir ina bil ity to p e rs ua de the Came ro on ian c ourt s to ov e rl oo k p la int if fs '
re fu sa l to pa

y the de po sit

or fi le the summo ns re fute s, in p art , p la int if fs ' c la im that de fe nd ants control the Camer oonian judiciary . Nor c an the Came roonian c ourts' ref usal to acc ept the ca se be blamed on the c ourts themselves. Courts in the United States also dismiss cases whe re pla intiffs ref use to prosec ute their c ase by decliningto satisfy

threshold re quirements. B ut dismi ssal on such g rounds is not the same as r efusingto acc ept the ca se. Aside f rom taking the initial step of filing the ir ca se in the Camer oonian cour t sy stem, plaintiffs have c ontested eve ry eff ort at
mov ingthe c a se fo rw ard

in C ame ro on . T hat is no t th e g oo d f a iththe Court

c on te mpl a te d w he n it direc ted plaintiffs to prosec ute their c laims in Cameroon. II. Reconsideration of Pr ivate and Public Intere st F actor s Plaintiffs also ask this Court to reconsider its ana ly sis of the private a nd public interests at stake in this liti g ation. Motions to reconsider a re g overne d by

Rule 59(e) of the F eder al Rules of Civil Procedur e. " ' A Rule 59(e) motion is discretionar y and nee d not be g rante d unless the district court finds that there is an interveningchang e of c ontrolling law , the ava ilability of new
e vid e nc e , o r t

he ne e d to c or

re c t a c le ar e rr or

or pr e ve nt m anif

e st i nju sti c e .' " Cir a lsk

y v. Ce nt. I ntellige nce A g ency , 355 F.3d 661, 671 ( D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Fire stone v. Fire stone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996)); see also Mobley v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 405 F. Supp. 2d 42, 45 (D.D.C. 2005) ( "Amotion for rec onsideration . . . will not lightly be g rante d.") . A Rule 59(e) motion "is not simpl y

an opportunity

to rea rgue fa cts and theor ies upon which a court ha s alrea dy ruled." New Y ork v. United States, 880 F . Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995). Nor is it " a vehic le for prese nting theor ies or ar g uments that could have been a dvance d ear lier." Bur lington Ins. Co. v.-10-

Okie Dokie I

nc., 439 F . Supp. 2d 124, 128 (D.D.C. 2006); see a lso Kattan v. District of Columbi a, 995 F .2d 274, 276 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Th e Court

pr e vio us ly

c on du c te d a

n e xten siv e ana ly sis of

the pr ivate and

pu bli c int e re st fac tors at stake he re. See MBI Group, 558 F . Supp. 2d at 32-36. In their motion for
rec onsideration, plaintiffs do not point to an interveningchang e of c ontrolling law , new evidenc e, or c lear

err or or manif

est injustice, as is require d by Rule 59(e) . See Ciralsky , 355 F.3d at 671. Rather, they simply resur rec t the arguments this C ourt previously considere d and found unper suasive. I n dismiss ing this ca se on for um non conveniens g rounds, this Court did not find the interests ana ly sis to present a c lose question. Although the adequa cy of the a lternative f

orum
wa s su ff ic ie ntl y c los e to w arr ant a

c on dit ion a l di smi ssa l, t

he Court he ld t hat " [t]he c on ta c ts w ith the United States ar e simply insufficient to over come the pow erf ul showing that Cameroon is the fa r m or e a pp ro pr iate fo rum to he ar t his matte r. " MB IGr ou

p, 55 8 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 36 (e mph a sis added) . Plaintiffs offer

no basis to alter that a ssessment. Henc e, their motion for r econside ration of the private and public inter est fac tors falls well short of the standard se t forth by Rule 59(e)
. CO NC LU SION On the re cord be fore the Court, the fa ilure of plaintiffs' case in Cameroon ca n be blamed only on plaintiffs themselves. He nce, pla intiffs' argument -- that a cce ptance of the c ase by the Cameroonian c ourts, a condition of this Court's dismissal, has not bee n met -- f alls flat. Nor have pla intiffs' made a

showing as to why

the Court should reconside r its conclusion that, on balanc e, the pr ivate and public inter est fac tors weig h heavily in favor of

this disput e being resolved in Came roon. Ac cording ly , plaintiffs' motion will be denie d. A sepa rate order-11-

acc ompanies this opinion. SO OR DE RE D
. / s / J OHN D. B ATES UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE Date: June 23, 2009