474 F.Supp.3d 194
D.D.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are U.S. service members, civilians, and families injured or killed by terrorist attacks in Iraq (2005–2011) who sued multiple pharmaceutical and medical-equipment companies under the Anti‑Terrorism Act (ATA) and state law.
- Defendants contracted with Iraq’s Ministry of Health and its import arm Kimadia to supply medicines and devices; contracts included "free goods" and defendants allegedly made cash payments through local agents.
- Plaintiffs allege the Ministry was corrupted and under Sadrists/Jaysh al‑Mahdi (JAM) control, that diverted goods and monetized free goods on black markets, and that defendants knowingly financed JAM’s terrorist attacks.
- Foreign defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; all defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing plaintiffs fail to state ATA claims; defendants also raised political‑question and act‑of‑war defenses.
- The court concluded it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, declined pendent jurisdiction over state‑law claims, reserved decision on the act‑of‑war defense at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage, and dismissed plaintiffs’ ATA claims for both direct and aiding‑and‑abetting liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants | Foreign defendants "aimed" conduct at U.S. by financing attacks on Americans; U.S. sourcing and use of U.S. banking links create contacts | All relevant conduct (contracts, payments, alleged corrupt acts) occurred in Iraq; any U.S. ties are peripheral and not "express aiming" | No specific personal jurisdiction; contacts too attenuated and suit‑related conduct occurred in Iraq |
| Pendent jurisdiction over state‑law claims | Court should retain pendent jurisdiction because ATA claims are before the court | Court lacks jurisdiction over ATA claims, so pendent jurisdiction inappropriate | Declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction; state claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Political question doctrine | Plaintiffs: statutory ATA claims are judicially manageable and don’t require ruling on foreign policy | Defendants: adjudication would second‑guess U.S. Iraq‑war policy and foreign‑policy choices | Not a political question; doctrine not invoked to dismiss here |
| Act‑of‑war defense (ATA) | Plaintiffs: JAM is not a military force and attacks were not acts "in the course of" armed conflict | Defendants: act‑of‑war bars suit for injuries arising from armed conflict | Court declined to resolve on 12(b)(6); factual disputes make defense improper to decide at motion‑to‑dismiss stage |
| Direct liability under ATA and proximate causation | Defendants’ contracts, free goods, and cash payments were a substantial factor causing plaintiffs’ injuries | The Iraqi Ministry (sovereign intermediary) severed proximate causation; goods/payments were routed through legitimate government channels | Direct ATA claims dismissed for failure to plausibly plead proximate causation |
| Aiding‑and‑abetting liability (JASTA) | Defendants knowingly provided substantial assistance to JAM; Hezbollah (a designated FTO) planned/authorized JAM attacks, satisfying the statute | Statute requires an FTO to have "committed, planned, or authorized" the specific act; JAM is not an FTO; plaintiffs fail to plead Hezbollah planned/authorized most attacks or that defendants gave "substantial" assistance | Aiding‑and‑abetting claims dismissed: plaintiffs failed to show an FTO planned/authorized the attacks and failed to plead defendants knowingly provided substantial assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (jurisdiction requires that defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into the forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and relatedness of contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (suit‑related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum)
- In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (indirect funding to terrorists insufficient for personal jurisdiction absent primary participation or express aiming)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (repeated use of New York banking system to effect transfers to Hezbollah supported jurisdiction in a different factual context)
- Owens v. BNP Paribas S.A., 897 F.3d 266 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (ATA requires proximate causation; sovereign intermediary can defeat causation)
- Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2013) (sovereign intermediary role can attenuate causation even where state sponsors of terrorism involved)
- Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 882 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2018) (aiding‑and‑abetting under ATA requires awareness that assistance assumes a role in terrorist activity)
- Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (factors for assessing when assistance is "substantial" for secondary liability)