UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUl/IBIA lFTIKHAR SAIYED, Plaintiff, v. COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS ACTION NETWORK, lNC., Defendant. RENE ARTURG LOPEZ, e_t al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 10-0023 (PLF) V. COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS ACTION NETWORK, INC., Defendant. ///////V_////V/./_///./V./V/V M_IU Pending before the Court in these consolidated actions is the motion [Dkt. No. 135 in Civil Action No. 10-0022 and Dkt. No. 136 in Civil Action No. 10-0023] of defendant Council on American-lslamic Relations Action Network, Inc. (“CAIR”) for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”), VA. CODE ANN. § 59.1-196, et M. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ papers, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will deny the motion.l I. BACKGROUND The Court’s prior Opinions summarize the factual and procedural history of this case. § Lopez v. CAIR, 741 F. Supp. 2d 222 (D.D.C. 2010); Saiyed v. CAIR, 742 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2010); Saiyed v. CAIR, 78 F. Supp. 3d 465 (D.D.C. 2015), rev. and remanded by Lopez v. CAIR, 826 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Briet1y, CAIR is a national “Muslim advocacy group.” § Statement of Facts at 4. Between 2007 and 2008, plaintiffs sought legal assistance from l/Iorris Days, an individual who was hired to “act as resident attorney” of CAIR’s Virginia chapter, CAIR-VA. §e_e § at 4-5. In particular, Mr. Days allegedly promised to assist plaintiffs with claims relating to “immigration status, divorce proceedings, hostile work environment, and employment discrimination.” § LQ}§; Am. Compl. 11 14; §_auy_e§ Am. Compl. 1111 54-55. l/lr. Days purportedly took money and other forms of payment from at least some of the plaintiffs in exchange for these promises of representation, despite CAIR’s policy to provide legal services pro bono. § Statement of Facts at 5; M Am. Compl. 11 6. l/[r. Days, however, was not a licensed attorney and “did not provide the services he represented he would provide Plaintiffs.” l Unless otherwise noted, all references to the docket in this Opinion are to Civil Action No. 10-0022. The Court reviewed the following filings and exhibits attached thereto in resolving the pending motion: Saiyed Amended Complaint (“Saiyed Am. Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 3]; Lopez Amended Complaint (“Lopez Am. Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 5 in Civil Action No. 10-0023]; October 7, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Oct. 7, 2016 Mem. Op. & Order”) [Dkt. No. 108]; CAIR’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 1351; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Opp’n”) [Dkt. No. 136]; Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Facts (“Statement of Facts”) [Dkt. No. 136]; CAIR’s Reply in Support of l/Iotion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Reply”) [Dkt. No. 137]; CAIR’s Motion for Summary Judgment “Def. l/ISJ” [Dkt. No. 80 in Civil Action No. 10-0023]; CAIR’s l/Iotion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing “Def. l/ITD” [Dkt. No. 9]; and December 14, 2017 Minute Order by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson (“Dec. 14, 2017 Minute Order”). 2 Statement of Facts at 5. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals