755 F.2d 375 - Stevens v. Morrison-Knudsen Saudi Arabia Consortium — 755 F.2d 375

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2000

11 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Douglas B. Huron, Washington, D.C. (Eileen M. Stein, Stein & Huron, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellants.

¶2George D. Ruttinger, Washington, D.C. (Eldon H. Crowell, W. Stanfield Johnson,

¶3Clifton S. Elgarten, Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellees,

¶4Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges

¶5pgp CURIAM-

¶6. Appellants worked for a consortium do-in® construction work in Saudi Arabia at the behest of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. While there they engaged in d™g offenses, the commission of which is not contested, thereby violating Saudi law. They were arrested, tried and convicted and served time in a Saudi place of confinement.1

¶7Appellants have brought an action against their employer and those associated with the employer a) claiming close affiliation with the United States Army Corps of Engineers sufficient to justify a Bivens type action (see Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971)), and b) aSsertin^ a variety of common law claims.

¶8The principal thrust of the complaint has been that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has sufficient scope to create liability for behavior in Saudi Arabia which would contravene United States law if it took place within the confines of this country (without, however, addressing the questions of what is the Saudi Arabian law and whether it would apply). On that basis search and seizure without warrant are put forth as grounds , , ,, , . ., ,. , to support the claims. Also cooperation by the defendants with Saudi Arabian authorities in a manner which plaintiffs contend is inconsistent with treatment of other similarly situated employees forms a basis for ^be Sud"

¶9The district judge painstakingly analyzed the many points raised. He concluded, inter alia’ that:

¶101) The Bivens action was not viable.

¶11 *3762) Diversity jurisdiction covering the state claims was lacking.

¶12We affirm on the opinions of the district court. Stevens v. Morrison-Knudsen Saudi Arabia Consortium, 576 F.Supp. 516 (D.Md.1983); Memorandum and Order, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, No. H-82-74 (Feb. 29, 1984).

¶13AFFIRMED.