Law Office


Practice areas  include Complex Civil Litigation, Business Disputes, Employment Matters, Defamation and other Tortious acts, Products Liability, Real Estate and Construction litigation.


 In a contract dispute between a California based company and a Virginia based company, Juli Haller moved to dismiss the Defendant on personal jurisdiction grounds.  In a case of first impression, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed that entering into a contract with a District of Columbia firm was not enough to satisfy the minimum contacts required of the Due Process Clause, even where the defendants had solicited the plaintiffs located in the District of Columbia and transferred the case to San Diego.  World Wide Travel Inc., et al. v. Travelmate US, Inc., et al., D.D.C. No. 13-13333 (JEB); 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162880.


The Superior Court for the District of Columbia granted Defendants, the property owners’, Motion to Dismiss against a former tenant, the Motion was based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim on grounds of res judicata.  Craig Leak v. Cedar Hill Associates, 2012 CA 001860 B. 


In defense of Arlington Blue Top Cab, and admitted pro hac vice, Juli Haller argued and won summary judgment on tort based claims against Arlington Blue Top Cab, involving the common carrier's higher standard of care, based on the driver’s status as an independent contractor.   Ashley Carpenter v. Demeke Aschenaki, et al., In the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria, Case No, CL10004789.


In claims arising out of an private organization's internal process, the DC Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal on personal jurisdiction under the District of Columbia Long Arm Statute, § 13-423 finding that “[o]nce . . . the claim is related to acts in the District, § 13-423 does not require that the scope of the claim be limited to activity within this jurisdiction.” Id. (further citations omitted).  Daley v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., 26 A.3d 723, 728 (D.C. 2011).


In claims that had included defamation, civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Juli wrote and argued the Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of the Defendant, a private investigator, that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the investigator for the counts including civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which the trial court ultimately granted, and was later affirmed. Grimes v. District of Columbia, 89 A.3d 107, 109-110 (D.C. 2014).

In a case involving defamation claims by a former chairman of an organization, Defendant’s motion to disqualify opposing counsel was granted. 
Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2008).  In the same claim, the organization and present officers counterclaimed with a Lanham Act claim against the former chairman and the Defendant organization obtained a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) limiting the use of any information obtained during discovery to within the strict context of the case.  Klayman v. Judicial Watch, 247 F.R.D. 19 (D.D.C. 2007).