Naghiu v. Inter-Continental Hotels Group, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
165 FRD 413 (1996)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Leslie Naghiu (plaintiff) worked for Christian Broadcast Network, Inc. (CBN), providing executive protection for Dr. Pat Robertson. Naghiu lived in Virginia, where CBN is based, but arranged security for Robertson on trips abroad and traveled with him. On a Zaire trip, CBN gave Naghiu the job of carrying an attaché case containing about $100,000 cash that other members of Robertson’s group used to purchase diamonds and render humanitarian aid. The group stayed at a hotel operated by Inter-Continental Hotels Group, Inc. (defendant). Because no safes were available, Naghiu hid the attaché case in his room. After transaction proceeds had added another $46,000, an intruder knocked Naghiu unconscious and stole the money. Naghiu brought a diversity action against the hotel seeking to recover the money, claiming Robertson expected reimbursement even though Robertson had said “not to worry about it” because Naghiu was bonded. Naghiu did not claim to be suing on anyone else’s behalf and testified he did not have a legal interest in the money himself or written authorization from CBN or Robertson to recover it. Naghiu also did not join CBN or Robertson to the lawsuit, and neither ratified Naghiu continuing it or agreed to be bound by the result. The hotel moved to dismiss, asserting Naghiu was not the real party in interest with respect to the stolen cash.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schwartz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
