A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., has ruled that National Empire Construction, Inc. can attempt to properly serve the Socialist Republic of Vietnam after the company faced challenges in its initial service attempts. This decision, issued by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on October 2, 2026, is significant for the construction company, which claims it is owed over $1 million for work done on the Vietnamese Embassy.
The case, formally known as Civil Action No. 2025-2384, highlights issues related to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the complexities involved in serving foreign entities in U.S. courts. The ruling allows National Empire Construction a 30-day window to correct its service mistakes and proceed with its claims.
National Empire Construction, based in Maryland, entered into a contract with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in April 2022 to renovate the Vietnamese Embassy in Washington, D.C. The company began work shortly after the agreement, completing about two-thirds of the project by August 2022. However, the project was abruptly halted by the embassy without clear explanation, leaving the construction firm unpaid for its labor and materials.
In July 2025, National Empire Construction filed a lawsuit against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and its embassy, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The company invoked the FSIA's commercial activity exception, which allows U.S. courts to hear cases against foreign states under certain conditions. The lawsuit sought damages exceeding $1 million.
After filing the complaint, National Empire Construction attempted to serve the Vietnamese defendants. However, the defendants contested the service, claiming it was not done properly. They filed a motion to dismiss the case based on insufficient service of process, which is a legal requirement that must be fulfilled for a court to have jurisdiction over a defendant.
The court's opinion noted that proper service under the FSIA is critical. The FSIA outlines specific methods for serving foreign states, requiring strict adherence to its provisions. The court found that National Empire Construction did not follow the correct sequence of service methods as required by the law.
Judge Sooknanan stated, "The Plaintiff has yet to properly serve the Defendants," emphasizing the importance of following the FSIA's procedural requirements. The court acknowledged that the plaintiff's attempts to serve the defendants were flawed but also recognized that there was potential for the plaintiff to correct these issues.
In its ruling, the court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss but allowed National Empire Construction the opportunity to achieve proper service within 30 days. The judge noted that dismissal would not be appropriate given the reasonable prospect that service could be obtained.
The court's decision means that National Empire Construction can continue its pursuit of damages against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, provided it successfully serves the defendants within the specified timeframe. This ruling is crucial for the construction firm, as it seeks to recover costs associated with the halted embassy renovation project.
The outcome of this case could have implications for how foreign entities are served in U.S. courts, particularly under the FSIA. It underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to the legal requirements for serving foreign states, which can often be complex and challenging.
Looking ahead, National Empire Construction must act quickly to meet the court's deadline for service. If the company fails to achieve proper service or does not request an extension, the court may dismiss the case altogether. The ruling does not prevent the defendants from challenging the claims once they are properly served, and it remains to be seen how the case will progress following this decision.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the defendants plan to appeal the ruling or if there are related cases pending. However, the court's decision to allow the plaintiff another chance at service indicates a willingness to ensure that the case can be heard on its merits.