Angellino v. Royal Family Al-Saud
402 U.S. App. D.C. 136
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Angellino, Brooklyn-based artist, designed and shipped 29 sculptures in 2006-2007 for the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia, invoiced at $12,580,000, which remained unpaid.
- Communications with defendants occurred through the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., with Embassy letters and responses guiding some correspondence.
- Angellino filed a pro se breach-of-contract complaint in March 2010 seeking over $12 million; service of process issues arose under FSIA § 1608 and FRCP 4(f).
- Angellino attempted service by mailing documents to the Saudi Embassy on April 8, 2010; the Embassy refused to accept, and ministerial service attempts were rejected by the clerk’s office.
- The district court issued two show-cause orders (Dec. 2010 and Apr. 2011) requiring proof of service or a reason for failure to prosecute; Angellino argued a special arrangement via the Embassy.
- In April 2011 the district court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and service defects; Angellino appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process complied with FSIA § 1608 and FRCP 4(f) | Angellino contends a valid special arrangement via the Embassy permitted service. | The district court required proper application of § 1608(a) and FRCP 4(f) with alternative service methods. | District court abused discretion; reasonable probability of service exists under § 1608(a) and 4(f). |
| Whether Angellino’s conduct constitutes sufficient prosecutorial diligence | Angellino actively attempted service and responded to show-cause orders. | Angellino failed to obtain service or show viable alternatives; delay/inaction warrants dismissal. | Court reversed; dismissal for failure to prosecute was abuso of discretion given attempts and notice failures. |
| Whether the district court adequately informed pro se plaintiff of service requirements | Court failed to provide clear notice of acceptable service methods and consequences of non-compliance. | Procedural rules were available, but Angellino did not satisfy them. | District court committed error by not giving fair notice; reversal warranted. |
| Whether dismissal without prejudice was proper given potential for service | Angellino should be given opportunity to effect service. | Court may dismiss for failure to prosecute when service is unlikely or delays are excessive. | Court held improper to dismiss without prejudice here; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belhas v. Ya'alon, 515 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ( FSIA service by embassy-related channels discussed)
- Novak v. World Bank, 703 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (service by magistrate and reasonable probability of service)
- Moore v. Agency for Intl. Dev., 994 F.2d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (pro se notice and minimal guidance to pleadings)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (notice requirements to pro se litigants in dismissals)
- Smith-Bey v. Cripe, 852 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to prosecute; abuse of discretion standard)
- Peterson v. Archstone Comms., LLC, 637 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute; abuse standard)