Opinion ID: 147419
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nattah's other claims against L-3

Text: Two of Nattah's other claims against L-3 warrant brief discussion. First, although the district court granted L-3's motion to dismiss all claims, see Nattah, 541 F.Supp.2d at 233, the court did not expressly address Nattah's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against L-3 (Count VIII). However, since we review the district court's decision granting L-3's motion to dismiss de novo, we are not required to remand the issue merely because the district court failed to consider it. See, e.g., Spaziano v. Singletary, 36 F.3d 1028, 1041 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173, 178 (D.C.Cir.2002). Although Nattah brings his IIED claim under Iraqi and Kuwaiti law, he does not address the elements of the claim under either law. His pleading consists of a single sentence stating he incorporates paragraphs 1-95 above by reference. First Am. Compl. ¶ 278. Those paragraphs, primarily discussing the U.S. government's alleged deception involving weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, fail to satisfy FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2). We therefore conclude Nattah's IIED claim was properly dismissed. Second, the district court dismissed Nattah's fraud claim against L-3 (Count IX) because his assertions fail[ed] to set out with particularity a plausible claim for fraud, as required by FED. R.CIV.P. 9(b). Nattah, 541 F.Supp.2d at 236. We may affirm the district court's decision on the basis of `any grounds which . . . support [it].' In re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab. Litig., 880 F.2d 1439, 1444 (D.C.Cir.1989). We therefore need not decide whether Nattah's pleadings are sufficient since his claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for fraud claims in Virginiawhere Nattah alleges the fraud occurredis two years from the time the fraud was or reasonably should have been discovered. VA.CODE §§ 8.01-243(A), -249(1). Even assuming Nattah's claim did not accrue until June 2003, the date he alleges he was released from the military hospital in Germany, First Am. Compl. ¶ 117; Appellant Br. at 12, he did not file his initial complaint until April 2006, well over two years later. (J.A. 10). With respect to Nattah's other claims against L-3, his claims against the Six Unknown Government Employees, and his motion for leave to file an amended complaint joining certain Iraqi defendants, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's memorandum opinion of March 31, 2008.