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

Respondents’ Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule, September 11, 2018

11 Sep 2018
Process and Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID) v. Nigeria Ministry of Petroleum Resources
View case details
Respondents’ Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Respondents’ Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule
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, Kevin A. Meehan, Juan O. Perla
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
Respondents’ Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document constitutes the Respondents' Opposition to the Petitioner's Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The underlying dispute involves a petition filed by Process and Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) to confirm an arbitral award against the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its Ministry of Petroleum Resources.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The central procedural issue is whether a foreign state can be compelled to brief merits defenses under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) prior to a conclusive judicial determination of its sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Nigeria asserts an absolute right to a threshold jurisdictional determination, arguing that the FSIA supersedes the summary procedures of the FAA. Relying on established precedent, including the Supreme Court's decision in Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co., Nigeria contends that forcing a sovereign to litigate the merits before resolving immunity defeats the core purpose of the FSIA—immunity from suit itself.

Conversely, the Petitioner advocates for a consolidated briefing schedule, invoking the summary procedures of the FAA to expedite the confirmation proceedings. Nigeria counters that the FSIA provides the exclusive basis for jurisdiction over a foreign state and mandates a bifurcated process, noting that an adverse immunity determination is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Furthermore, Nigeria notes that its merits defenses, which include public policy objections to a grossly disproportionate damages award, would require substantial resources that should not be expended prior to a definitive ruling on jurisdiction.

Relief Sought

Nigeria requests that the Court deny the Petitioner's motion and establish a briefing schedule limited exclusively to the Respondents' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.