Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

P&ID v. Nigeria, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Respondents’ Motions to Set Aside, June 12, 2018

12 Jun 2018
Process and Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID) v. Nigeria Ministry of Petroleum Resources
View case details
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Respondents’ Motions to Set Aside
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Respondents’ Motions to Set Aside
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Joseph D. Pizzurro
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Process and Industrial Developments Ltd., Nigeria, Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Respondents’ Motions to Set Aside
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted by the Respondents, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Respondents seek to set aside a Clerk’s Entry of Default and to dismiss the Petitioner’s action to confirm an arbitral award pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (4), and (5), and 55(c).

Legal Issues and Respondents' Positions

The principal legal issue addressed is whether the Court possesses personal jurisdiction over the Respondents under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Respondents argue that the Petitioner failed to strictly comply with the exclusive service procedures mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3). Specifically, the Respondents contend that the service documents were improperly addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs generally, rather than explicitly to the head of the ministry, as required by established D.C. Circuit precedent. Furthermore, the Respondents assert that the Petitioner failed to utilize a form of mail requiring a signed receipt and omitted necessary portions of the FSIA from the notice of suit.

Based on these procedural defects, the Respondents maintain that the attempted service of process was insufficient, rendering the subsequent entry of default absolutely void for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Respondents request that the default be set aside and the enforcement petition be dismissed in its entirety.