ABC v. DEF

Filing 28

ORDER: The Government's summary judgment papers do not address Iloulian's relationship with Delta Uniforms at the time of the criminal proceedings or whether that relationship justifies a finding that Defendants were in privity for purposes of collateral estoppel. The parties will make submissions addressing this issue by June 27, 2024. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 6/12/2024) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
HAMID (JOE) LAHIJANI,
Plaintiff and Relator,
-against-

ORDER
19 Civ. 3290 (PGG)

DELTA UNIFORMS, INC., and GEORGE
ILOULIAN (a/ka/ GEORGE ILLULIAN),
individually,
Defendants.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
-againstDELTA UNIFORMS, INC. and GEORGE
ILOULIAN,
Defendants.
PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.:
In this qui tam action, Plaintiff-Intervenor United States of America (“Plaintiff” or
the “Government”) moves for summary judgment against Defendants Delta Uniforms, Inc. and
George Iloulian (collectively “Defendants”) on the basis that Iloulian’s guilty plea in United
States Iloulian, 21 Cr. 579 (PGG), precludes both Defendants from contesting liability in the
instant case. (Pltf. Br. (Dkt. No. 25) at 6)
Delta Uniforms was not charged or convicted in the criminal case. In general, “a
determination in a prior judicial proceeding collaterally estops a claim by a nonparty only if that
nonparty was represented by a party to the prior proceeding, or exercised some degree of actual

control over the presentation on behalf of a party to that proceeding.” Stichting Ter Behartiging
Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt Int’l B.V. v. Schreiber,
327 F.3d 173, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Courts “recognize privity based on
representation only if the interests of the person alleged to be in privity were ‘represented [in the
prior proceeding] by another vested with the authority of representation.’” Id. (alteration in
original) (quoting Monahan v. New York City Dep’t of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 285 (2d Cir. 2000).
The Second Circuit has found privity “where a party to a previous suit was, at the time of the
litigation, acting as either a fiduciary or organizational agent of the person against whom
preclusion is asserted.” Id. at 185; see also id. at 186 (declining to find privity for purposes of
collateral estoppel where the former CEO of a company “was not vested with the authority to
represent [the company] because he was neither a fiduciary nor an agent of [the company] during
his trial”).
The Government’s summary judgment papers do not address Iloulian’s
relationship with Delta Uniforms at the time of the criminal proceedings or whether that
relationship justifies a finding that Defendants were in privity for purposes of collateral estoppel.
The parties will make submissions addressing this issue by June 27, 2024.
Dated: New York, New York
June 12, 2024

SO ORDERED.
________________________________
Paul G. Gardephe
United States District Judge

2