Waters v. Armenian Genocide Museum & Memorial, Inc.
924 F. Supp. 2d 183
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Armenian Assembly and AGM&M moved for a new trial under Rule 60(b) after a bench trial—alleging Waters perjured himself and that Cafesjian’s promised compensation affected credibility and outcomes.
- The Court previously resolved the merits in Armenian Assembly I and II, and incorporated those findings while addressing post-trial grounds.
- Plaintiffs argued Waters had a compensation agreement (special bonus, indemnification) with Cafesjian and that relevant documents were destroyed in 2009.
- Court held Plaintiffs had opportunity to present their case; no clear and convincing evidence of perjury or misconduct altering outcome as to the final judgment.
- Court denied the motion for a new trial, concluding no prejudice or legal basis to vacate the judgment.
- Minnesota proceedings and Waters’ unverified complaint were used as the basis for alleged misconduct, which the Court found insufficient to disturb final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Waters committed perjury under Rule 60(b)(3). | Waters allegedly concealed a Cafesjian bonus and other compensation. | Minnesota complaint is unverified; no proof of perjury. | No clear and convincing evidence of perjury. |
| Whether the court relied on Waters’ credibility to reach its conclusions. | Waters’ undisclosed compensation undermined credibility. | No required disclosure; credibility not determinative. | Credibility issue did not prejudice the outcome. |
| Whether Cafesjian and Waters breached fiduciary duties via MOA/Grant and initial Minnesota suit. | Breaches harmed AGM&M and undermined relief. | Fiduciary duties were not proven to have caused injury. | No actionable breach; judgment not disturbed. |
| Whether document destruction/discovery misconduct occurred affecting the case. | Waters alleged destruction; relevant documents possibly destroyed. | No clear evidence of destruction and no prejudice shown. | No discovery misconduct proven; final judgment remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Howard Univ., 374 F.3d 1188 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (prejudice requirement in Rule 60(b)(3) cases)
- Hamilton v. Gen. Motors Corp., 490 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1973) (obligation to disclose expenses; claims context)
- Solvent Chemical Co., Inc. v. ICC, 166 F.R.D. 284 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (payments to fact witnesses; public policy relevance)
- Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters Non-Marine Assoc., 865 F. Supp. 1516 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (payments to witnesses; not disqualifying per se)