United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia - Center for ...

Ibrahim II, 556 F. Supp. 2d at 5. The District Court held Defendants are
eligible for preemption if and only they could prove that their employees
Id.
were acting under the direct command and
exclusive operational control of the military chain
of command....When the military allows private
contractors to retain authority to oversee and
manage their employees’ job performance on the
battlefield, no federal interest supports relieving
those contractors of their state law obligations to
select, train, and supervise their employees
properly.
The District Court denied CACI’s motion for summary judgment, but
granted L-3’s motion. The District Court denied motions to reconsider, and
granted L-3’s motions for a final judgment on December 21, 2007. RI.115,
RS.154. Plaintiffs timely filed Notices of Appeal. RS.159, RI.121.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This Statement summarizes the record evidence regarding (1) the
military’s findings that L-3 employees abused prisoners, (2) the contract
between L-3 and the United States, and (3) evidence produced by L-3 about
supervision; and (4) evidence produced by the military about supervision.
(1) The Military’s Findings That L-3 Employees Abused Prisoners.
The military found that a group of military personnel, L-3 employees,
and CACI employees systemically and illegally abused prisoners at Abu
4