Barot v. Embassy of the Republic of Zambia
11 F. Supp. 3d 33
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiff Delores Barot sued Embassy of the Republic of Zambia in D.D.C. for Title VII, ADEA, and DC wage claims.
- Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service under FSIA § 1608(a)(3).
- Plaintiff moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) arguing strict compliance was shown by service on February 3, 2014.
- Service attempt used a DHL waybill addressed to the Embassy of Zambia in Lusaka, not to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs as required.
- Cosignee on the package was listed as “Ministry of Foreign Affairs” rather than an individual or office; DHL notes indicated abbreviation, not strict compliance.
- Court declined to alter its prior decision, citing strict adherence to § 1608(a)(3) and lack of proper service despite new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the DHL waybill satisfy §1608(a)(3)? | Barot argues strict compliance via embassy delivery to the ministry. | Zambia contends waybill not addressed to head of ministry or minister. | No; burden requires addressing to head of ministry or minister. |
| May new evidence be reviewed under Rule 59(e) to justify reconsideration? | New emails show cosignee as Ministry of Foreign Affairs. | New evidence not properly reviewable; could have been presented earlier. | No material change; strict compliance remains unmet. |
| Is it fatal that the label lacked the words 'head of' even with a corresponding addressee? | Failure to use 'head of' should not be fatal. | Entire addressee must reference the office head or minister. | Fatal; no reference to the actual addressee occupying the office. |
Key Cases Cited
- Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (strict adherence to 1608(a) requirements)
- Doe I v. State of Israel, 400 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2005) (§ 1608(a) requirements applied strictly)
- Sabbithi v. Al Saleh, 623 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2009) (defects in service under § 1608(a) are not excused)
- Nikbin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 471 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2007) (court followed strict § 1608(a) compliance)
- Democratic Republic of Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates, LLC, 508 F.3d 1062 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (discussed head-of-ministry issue and service context)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (precedent recognizing Rule 59(e) standard)