The United Arab Emirates (UAE) held a competition for the architectural design of a new embassy and chancery building in Washington, D.C. Elena Sturdza, the winner of the competition, was licensed to practice architecture in Maryland and Texas, but not in the District of Columbia. The parties began contract negotiations, but no contract was ever executed. Sturdza alleged that the design prepared by an architect later hired by the UAE copied features of the design she had submitted to the UAE during negotiations, and sued the UAE for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The UAE moved for summary judgment on grounds that District law barred an architect from recovering on a contract or in quantum meruit for architectural services rendered in the District if the architect lacked a District architect's license when he or she began negotiating the contract, entered into the contract, or performed the architectural services, even if the architect was licensed to practice architecture in another jurisdiction at such times. The federal district court granted the UAE summary judgment on both claims. Sturdza appealed. How do you think the appellate court ruled and why? [Elena Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, et al., 11 A.3d 251; 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 2 (2011).]