ELE NA STURDZ A, P la in t if f,
v. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, et al.,

De fend ant s. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Ci vi l A cti on 08 -01 64 2 (H HK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff Elena Sturdza has filed a pro se c omp la int a g a ins t tw e nty-t

wo de fe nd ants , mo st of whom she ha s not served. B efor e the c ourt is the rene wed motion to dismi ss of David Shapiro and Mintz, L evin, Cohn, Fe rris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. [ #15]. Upon consideration of the mot ion , a nd thi s c ourt ’s sua sponte re vie w o f p la int if f’ s c omp la int

purs ua nt t o 2 8 U .S. C. §1 91 5( e )( 2) (B )( ii) , th e c la ims a g a ins t de fe nd ants wi ll b e dis mis se d b e c a us e the c omp la int

fa ils to
s t at e a c l a i ma g a i n s tth e mf

o r w h i c hr e l i e f

c anb e g r an t e d

o r b e c a u s e th e c l a i m s ar e b ar

r e d b y res jud ic ata . Failure to state a claim. A pr o s e complaint is entitled to li bera l construction. Haines v. Kerne r , 404 U.S. 519, 52 0 ( 19 72 ). Th is b e ne fi t is no t, h ow e ve r, a lic e ns e to i g no re the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Procedur e. Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D .C. 1987). A pro se c omp la int mus t comply with the basic re quirements of Rule 8, whic h require s that a complaint conta in a short
and pla in s tate me nt o f t

he g ro un ds up on

wh ic h th e c ourt ’s jur isd ic tio n d e pe nd s, a sh or t and pla in statement of the c laim showing that the pleade r is entitled to relief, a nd a dema

nd for judg ment-2-

for the r elief the pleade r see ks. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 8(a) . The purpose of the minimum standard set by Rule 8 is to give f

air notice to defe ndants of the c laim beingasser ted, suffic ient to prepa

re a responsive a

nswer, to pr epar e an a dequate defe nse and to de termine whe ther the doc trine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D .D.C. 1977). The c omplaint in thi s case does not meet the minimum require ments of Rule 8. The complaint attempts to alleg e fa cts by ref err ing to other

documents that ar e not clea rly identified and ar e not attac hed to the complaint. A de fenda nt is under no obligation to hunt down documents to deter

mine what fa cts are alleg ed ag ainst him. P laintiff has not made any fac tual alleg ations at all ag ainst any of the de fenda

nts she ref

ers to as “ All Plainti ff’ s Forme r L awyers.” (C omp l. at 6. ) N or

do e s h e r c omp la int

a lle g e any

wr on g do ingby

the Un ite d A ra

b E mir ate s. Re s ju dic ata As a c ourt of limited jurisdiction, thi s Court is under a c ontinuing oblig ation to examine its jurisdi ction any

time it appear s to be in question. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Nahas , 7 38 F .2 d 4 87 , 4 92 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 4) . Ac ourt may de a l sua sponte with the issue of res jud ic ata . Sta nto n v . D .C. Cou rt o f A pp e als , 127 F.3d 72, 77 ( D.C. Cir. 1997). One a spect of the doctrine of res judicata is that “ a jud g me nt o n th e me ri ts i n a pr ior su it b ars a

se c on d s uit involving identica l parties . . . base d on the same c ause of action.” Apotex I

nc. v. F DA , 393 F.3d 210, 217 (D.C. Cir. 2004). A “ cause of ac tion, for purposes of [ re s ju dic ata ], c omp ri se s a ll rig hts of the plaintiff to re medies ag ainst the defe ndant with respe ct to all or any part of the transac tion, or series of

connec ted transa ctions, out of which the a ction arose .” Sta nto n v . D .C. Cou rt o f A pp e als , 127 F.3d at 78. “Under re s ju dic ata , a fina l judgment on the me rits of an action pre cludes the pa

rties or their pr ivies from re litigatingissues that were or could have bee n-3-

raised in that a ction.” Al le n v . M c Cur ry , 4 49 U. S. 9 0, 94 (1 98 0) . T he purp os e of the ru le is t o preve nt “litigation of matters that should have be en ra ised in an ea rlier suit.” Marrese v
. American A cadem

y of Orthopaedic Surge ons , 470 U.S. 373, 376 n.1 (1985). In short, the doctrine e mbodies the principle “ that a par ty who once has had a chanceto liti g ate a claim bef

ore an appr opriate tribuna l usually oug ht not to have another chanc e to do so.” SBC Com mu nic ati on s I

nc . v . FCC , 407 F.3d 1223, 1229 ( D.C. Cir.2005). Inth e in s ta

n t c o mp la int, th e o n ly

a ll e g ati o n s d ir e c te d

at Jo h nT
. Sz y

mk o w ic z, Sz y mkowicz & Associates, and Mohammed Mattar (Compl. at 5 (“Szy mkowicz and Mattar Def endants” )) de rive fr om the same c ause of action — eve nts that occurr ed betwe en 1994 and 1998 — that g ave r ise to the plaintiff’s prior lawsuit ag ainst those same thre e def endants. In that
case , the complaint was dismissed bec ause the statute of limitations had ex pired on a ll of the claims asser

ted. Se e Stu rd

za v . S zy mk owi c z &As so cs. e t al

. , Civil Action No. 01-2274, slip op. (D.D.C. Jul y

8, 2002). That de cision was a f inal decision on the mer its for res judicata purp os e s, which bar s not only

the claims that have been litig ated a nd decide d, but also relate d claims that
s te m f r o m t h e s ame nu c le u s o f

e v e n ts . Pl a inti f

f ’ s c la im s a g a in s t d e f

e n d an ts Jo h nSz y

mk o w ic z, Sz y mkowicz & Associates, and Mohammed Mattar will be dismissed beca use they are prec luded b y re s ju dic ata . Unfounded, frivolous, or malicious liti gation In pertinent pa

rt, Rule 11(b) pr ovides that when a plaintiff files a c omplaint, the plaintiff
cer tifies that to the best of [her] knowledg e, information and belief . . . ( 1) [the complaint] i s not beingprese nted . . . to hara ss or nee dlessly incre ase the cost of litigation; (2) the c laims . . . are w arr anted by exis ting law

or by a nonfr ivolous argument for e x tending , modifying, or reve rsingexis ting law

or for establishing ne w l aw; [an d] ( 3) the fa c tua l c onte nti on s h ave e vid e nti ary su pp or t or , ifThe c omplaint purports to state six teen c laims ag ainst twenty -two def endants, but does 1 no t c or re late the c la ims wi th t

he de fe nd ants . T hu s, it i s n ot p os sib le to d e te rm ine wi th c e rt a int y on the basis of the c omplaint which claims the plaintiff is pre ssing a g ainst Morrison and Mo rr iso n A rc hit e c ts. -4- sp e c if ic a lly so ide nti fi e d, wi ll l ike ly

have e vid e nti ary

su pp or t a ft e r a re a so na ble opportunity

for f urther inve stigation or discovery [.] Fe d. R. Civ. P . 11(b). In addition, wheneve r a c ourt deter mines that a pro s e c omp la int is malicious, it must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B )( I ). In a laws uit ini tiate d in

19 98 , th e pla int if

f s ue d A ng e los C. D e me tr iou and his
arc hitectura l desig n firm, Ang elos Deme triou & A ssociates, for alleg edly infring ing pla intiff’s
c op y ri g ht- pr ote c te d d e sign th at sh e su bmi tte d in

c omp e tit ion

fo r t he Un ite d A ra

b E mir ate s’ chanc ery in Washington, D.C. Se e Stu rd za v . U nite d A ra b E

mi ra te s e t al

. , Civil Action No. 98- 2051, Am. Compl. (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 1998). In a fina l, appea lable orde r issued in that ca se, the C o urtfo un d

th atth e D em et ri o ud es i gnati s s u e d i ff er eds i gn i fi ca n t l y

fr o mth e S turd z a d es i gn with respec t to the copy

rig ht-protec table fe ature s, and g rante d summary judgme nt to Demetriou and his arc hitectura l firm. See id. , slip op. at 13-14 (Oc t. 30, 2000). The plaintiff’ s appea l of that judgme nt is sti ll pending. Pr e suma bly a lle g ingc op y

ri g ht i nf ri ng e me nt by

Er ic Mo rr iso n a

nd Mo rr iso n A rc hit e c ts, 1 the ins tant c omp la int

state s th at: Def endant Morr ison has submitt ed a de sign f or the Chanc ery

of Moroc co almost identical to the desig n for the Cha ncer y of the UA E submitted by Demetr iou Defe ndant, desig n which wa s substantial simi lar to the de sign f or the C h an ce ry o f t h e U AE s u

b m i t t edb y

P l ai n t i ff S turd z a. De fe n d an tM o rr i s o n ’ d es i gn for the Cha

ncer y of Moroc co is substantial simil ar to Plaintiff Sturdza’s desig n for the Chance ry

of the UA E. Def endant Morr ison was until rece ntly an employee of

the Deme triou Def endant, a ctively

involved in the Chance ry of the UA E projec t, theref ore kne w5

a ll a lon ga

bo ut t he c op y ri g ht i nf ri ng e me nt b y

De me tr iou . D e fe nd ant M or ri so n is th er ef o re co m m i t t i n g wi l l fu l co p y ri gh ti n fr i n gem en to f p l ai n t i ff S turd z a’ s d es i gn for the Cha

ncer y of the UA E. * * * * Be cause Demetr iou Defe ndant is not actingin any way ag ainst Defe ndant Morrison’s ac t of copying the desig n for the Cha ncer y of the UA E submitted by De me tr iou , h e is p ro ba

bly the ma ste rm ind

of the ne w i nf

ri ng e me nt a

nd is there fore committing a ne w willful copy rig ht infring ement of Plaintiff Sturdza’s desig n for the Cha

ncer y of the UA E. (C omp l. at 6- 7. ). As dr a ft e d, the c la ims a g a ins t Mo rr iso n, De me tr iou and the ir re sp e c tiv e fi rm s depend on the notion that Demetriou and/or his fir m violated plaintiff’s copy rig ht on her United Ara b Emirates c hance ry

desig n. Howeve r, a c ourt has re ndere d a fina l judgment that ther e wa s no copy rig ht infring ement by

Demetr iou or his firm. Nec essar ily , then, there can be no derivative copy

rig ht infring ement, as this complaint appe ars to alleg e with re spect to Morrison and Morr ison Architec ts. I t appea rs that by filing this new c omplaint, plaintiff is ignoringthe fa c t th at th e Un ite d A ra

b E mir ate s c ha

nc e ry c op y ri ght i ssu e ha s b e e n f

ina lly de c ide d a

nd is attempting to r e-litig ate this issue. For the fore g oing r easons, this ac tion is di smissed. An appropriate orde r ac companies thi s me mor and

um.

Henr y H. Kenne dy , J r. Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge