The War Profiteers - The Blackwater Killings Civil Suit III

“[…] It appears from a review of the record that this case presents certain legal issues essentially identical to those presented in four additional civil matters also pending in this division, namely 1:09cv616, 1:09cv617, 1:09cv618 and 1:09cv645. It also appears that all of the plaintiffs in these five related matters are represented by the same counsel, as are all of the defendants.

“Accordingly, for the reasons stated from the Bench, and for purposes of judicial economy, It is hereby ordered that civil actions 1:09cv616, 1:09cv617, 1:09cv618 and 1:09cv645, which actions are currently assigned to other judges in this division, are reassigned to the undersigned district judge for the limited purpose of discovery and pre-trial motions.

“It is further ordered that this matter is consolidated with 1:09cv616, 1:09cv617, 1:09cv618 and 1:09cv645 for all pretrial purposes, including discovery and dispositive motions. Whether the matters will ultimately require separate trials to be presided over by the originally assigned judges is a question that will be addressed at a later date. […]

“It is further ordered that defendants’ motion to stay discovery […] is granted and discovery in each of these five consolidated civil actions is accordingly stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed by defendants in these matters.

“It is further ordered that a hearing on all motions to dismiss filed by defendants in these five consolidated civil actions is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 28, 2009. […]”

July 13^th, 2009 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint

“[…] Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 17(b)(3), and 21, Defendants hereby move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Dismissal is required for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350) and without this claim there is no basis for federal jurisdiction; (2) the Complaint presents nonjusticiable political questions; (3) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under applicable Iraqi law; (4) Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed under the government contractor defense; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by absolute immunity; (6) Plaintiffs have not established capacity to sue; (7) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against certain Defendants; and (8) Plaintiffs have sued a non-legal entity.

“The grounds for Defendants’ Motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

July 8^th, 2009 - Joint Report Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26 (f)

“[…] Plaintiffs Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon, et al. and Defendants Erik Prince, et al., by counsel, jointly file this report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (f) and the Court’s Scheduling Order of June 16, 2009 (‘June 16 Order’).

“[…] Plaintiffs’ Position On Discovery

“(1) This is a wrongful death action involving a single victim. Although the location of the wrongful shooting was Iraq, Plaintiffs are able to complete the discovery by the September 11, 2009, discovery cutoff date set by the June 16 Order. The eyewitnesses to the shooting have been identified and are able to travel to the United States for depositions and trial. […]

“[…] Defendants’ Position On Discovery

“(1) Discovery should not commence at this time. On July 13, 2009, Defendants will file a motion to dismiss that may completely dispose of this case or reduce the number of claims. In addition, Defendants will be filing a pleading that seeks immunity from suit. In the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, discovery should be stayed until the Court has decided Defendants’ immunity claims and its arguments for dismissal. Defendants intend to file a motion seeking to stay discovery. Defendants may need to file motions seeking protection from one or more deposition notices. […]”

June 12^th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint

“[…] This matter having come before the Court on the Joint Motion of the parties for an enlargement of time, until and including July 13, 2009, within which Defendants may answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, and good cause being shown therefor, it is hereby ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further ordered that Defendants shall file an answer or other response to the Complaint on or before July 13, 2009.

“So ordered. […]”

June 2^nd, 2009 - Complaint

“[…] 19. On Christmas Eve, 2006, Xe-Blackwater employee Andrew Moonen consumed excessive quantities of alcohol at a party being held in an area of Iraq referred to as Little Venice.

“20. Numerous other Xe-Blackwater employees were attending the same Christmas party. They all saw Moonen become intoxicated. They all saw Moonen leave the party in an intoxicated state carrying his Xe-Blackwater Glock.

“21. No Xe-Blackwater employee did anything to stop Moonen from leaving the Xe-Blackwater party heavily-armed and visibly intoxicated.

“22. Xe-Blackwater employee Andrew Moonen, after losing his way and stumbling drunkenly around Little Venice for a short period of time, came across Raheem Khalaf Sa'adoon on guard duty. Moonen, visibly intoxicated, pulled out his Glock and fired at Raheem Khalaf Sa'adoon, killing him for no reason.

“23. After Xe-Blackwater employee Moonen killed Raheem Khalaf Sa'adoon, Defendant Xe-Blackwater evaded Iraqi authorities and flew Moonen out of Iraq into the United States.

“24. Xe-Blackwater thereafter promised to compensate the widow for the death of her husband by making a series of payments. Xe-Blackwater made an initial payment of US $20,000, but made no further payments. The widow continued to believe that additional payments would be made until earlier this year. […]”

June 2^nd, 2009 - Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

“[…] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss without prejudice their claims against all Defendants. […]”

March 19^th, 2009 - Complaint

“[…] 18. On Christmas Eve, 2006, Xe-Blackwater employee Andrew Moonen consumed excessive quantities of alcohol at a party being held in an area of Iraq referred to as Little Venice.

“19. Numerous other Xe-Blackwater employees were attending the same Christmas party. They all saw Moonen become intoxicated. They all saw Moonen leave the party in an intoxicated state carrying his Xe-Blackwater Glock.

“20. No Xe-Blackwater employee did anything to stop Moonen from leaving the Xe-Blackwater party heavily-armed and visibly intoxicated.

“21. Xe-Blackwater employee Andrew Moonen, after losing his way and stumbling drunkenly around Little Venice for a short period of time, came across Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon on guard duty. Moonen, visibly intoxicated, pulled out his Glock and fired at Raheem Khalaf Sa'adoon, killing him for no reason.

“22. After Xe-Blackwater employee Moonen killed Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon, Defendant Xe-Blackwater evaded Iraqi authorities and flew Moonen out of Iraq into the United States.

“23. Xe-Blackwater thereafter promised to compensate the widow for the death of her husband by making a series of payments. Xe-Blackwater made an initial payment of US $20,000, but made no further payments. The widow continued to believe that additional payments would be made until earlier this year. […]”

Back to the Blackwater Killings

Back to Second Gulf War/Iraq Invasion II

Back to U.S. Department of Defense

Back to main index