Eugene Nyambal v. International Monetary Fund
413 U.S. App. D.C. 183
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Nyambal, a former IMF senior advisor, sued the International Monetary Fund (Fund) for assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after an incident at a public credit union located on Fund premises.
- The Fund invoked absolute immunity under its Articles of Agreement and the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), and moved to dismiss.
- Nyambal sought jurisdictional discovery to show the Fund had expressly waived immunity via contracts with the Credit Union or a security firm.
- The Fund produced affidavits denying any express waiver and voluntarily furnished the Credit Union and security-services contracts; the district court nevertheless authorized jurisdictional discovery and denied reconsideration.
- The district court also allowed Nyambal to amend his complaint and denied the Fund’s motion to dismiss as moot. The Fund appealed the discovery orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurisdictional discovery was warranted to determine if the Fund expressly waived immunity in contracts | Nyambal: specific contract clauses (e.g., Article 13.1 and indemnity provisions) plausibly suggest an express waiver or at least raise questions justifying discovery | Fund: contracts and affidavits show no express waiver; Article 28 expressly denies waiver and Board ratification is required; bare speculation insufficient | Reversed: plaintiff’s allegations were speculative; voluntary production of contracts and affidavits dispelled plausible basis for discovery |
| Whether a clause limiting liability (Article 13.1) can be read as an express waiver of immunity | Nyambal: the “unless” sub‑clause implies waiver or conflicts with non‑waiver clause, warranting inquiry | Fund: clause is a limitations‑on‑liability provision, not an express waiver; read in context it does not conflict with Article 28 | Held: clause does not constitute a plausible express waiver; reasonable reading precludes waiver inference |
| Whether the district court’s grant of jurisdictional discovery is immediately reviewable on appeal | Nyambal: (implicit) discovery order should stand | Fund: discovery order denies immunity’s protection from litigation burden and is collateral and reviewable | Held: collateral‑order jurisdiction exists to review discovery orders against an absolutely immune defendant; appellate review proper |
| Whether Atkinson (treating IOIA immunity like sovereign immunity) should be revisited to narrow IOIA immunity | Nyambal: asks to revisit Atkinson in light of Third Circuit OSS Nokalva | Fund: defends existing precedent | Held: Court declines to revisit Atkinson; Atkinson remains binding — international organizations retain immunity comparable to foreign states absent express waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (collateral‑order doctrine and appealability)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (standards for collateral appellate review)
- Foremost‑McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438 (discovery and immunity burdens)
- In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247 (immediate appealability when immunity defenses denied)
- Atkinson v. Inter‑American Dev. Bank, 156 F.3d 1335 (treatment of international‑organization immunity under IOIA)
- OSS Nokalva, Inc. v. European Space Agency, 617 F.3d 756 (Third Circuit decision prompting request to revisit Atkinson)
- Polak v. International Monetary Fund, 657 F. Supp. 2d 116 (jurisdictional discovery appropriate only on specific, well‑founded allegations of express waiver)