PILKIN v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC
1:17-cv-02501
| D.D.C. | Apr 4, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs Vitaly Pilkin and Vladimir Miroshnichenko, Russian citizens appearing pro se, sued Sony entities, Hogan Lovells, and the U.S. Department of Justice/Attorney General seeking $340,000,000 for alleged conspiracy to deprive them of profits from a Russian patent.
- Plaintiffs allege Sony and Hogan Lovells undermined their Russian patent in proceedings abroad and claim the DOJ failed to investigate or prosecute those parties despite plaintiffs providing evidence of FCPA and RICO violations.
- Plaintiffs assert the DOJ’s inaction amounted to aiding and defrauding the United States and point to the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual and criminal statutes as bases for liability.
- The court reviewed the complaint for subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
- The District Court treated suits against the Attorney General in his official capacity as suits against the United States and addressed sovereign immunity and the lack of any statutory waiver for the claims asserted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States waived sovereign immunity for monetary claims based on DOJ’s failure to investigate/prosecute third parties | Pilkin: DOJ’s inaction violated U.S. law and manuals and supports money damages against the United States | U.S.: Sovereign immunity bars money damages absent an unequivocal statutory waiver | Held: No waiver; sovereign immunity bars these claims; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual or statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 371, RICO) create a private cause of action against the United States | Pilkin: DOJ’s failure to act breached directives and statutory norms, supporting liability | U.S.: The Manuals have no force of law and statutes cited do not waive immunity or create private suits against the U.S. | Held: U.S. Attorneys’ Manual does not create waiver; cited statutes do not waive sovereign immunity |
| Whether the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives immunity for these claims (discretionary-function exception) | Pilkin: FTCA permits suit for government conduct causing harm | U.S.: FTCA’s discretionary-function exception bars suits based on discretionary prosecutorial decisions | Held: FTCA does not waive immunity here; discretionary-function exception applies; prosecutorial decisions are discretionary |
| Whether courts may second-guess DOJ’s prosecutorial discretion | Pilkin: DOJ should have investigated/prosecuted based on plaintiffs’ submissions | U.S.: Judicial review would improperly intrude on prosecutorial discretion and separation-of-powers | Held: Courts cannot judicially second-guess prosecutorial decisions; separation-of-powers and Heckler v. Chaney principles bar relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (treating official-capacity suit as suit against the State/United States)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (sovereign immunity requires an unequivocal statutory waiver)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (discretionary-function exception and limits on judicial review of discretionary acts)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (prosecutorial discretion immune from judicial review under separation-of-powers principles)