ENCINAS v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
1:18-cv-02568
D.D.C.Feb 28, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs are U.S. Marines (survivors), and families/estates of Marines, injured or killed in the October 23, 1983 Beirut Marine barracks suicide bombing; they sued Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS) under the FSIA state‑sponsored‑terrorism exception.
- Defendants were served via diplomatic notes under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4) and did not appear; the Clerk entered default and Plaintiffs moved for default judgment as to liability.
- The Court relied on judicial notice of earlier D.D.C. decisions (notably Peterson and Fain) and the underlying trial evidence (intelligence intercepts, expert testimony, forensic explosive analysis) to make independent findings of fact.
- Findings: Iran is a designated state sponsor of terrorism; MOIS is an integral state organ/secret police; Iran founded/funded/trained Hezbollah; Hezbollah carried out the barracks attack at Iran/MOIS direction and used bulk PETN explosives available from Iran.
- Plaintiffs submitted individual affidavits documenting physical injuries, PTSD, and emotional harms; the Court found jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1330 and that the state‑sponsored‑terrorism exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605A) applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FSIA jurisdiction / sovereign immunity (§1605A) | Iran/MOIS are sponsors/agents; attack = extrajudicial killing; Plaintiffs seek money damages | No appearance; would assert sovereign immunity or timeliness defenses | Court finds FSIA jurisdiction; state‑sponsored‑terrorism exception applies; MOIS treated as foreign state/agency |
| Agency & material support / responsibility for attack | Iran/MOIS founded, funded, trained, and ordered Hezbollah; intercepted orders and expert/forensic evidence tie Iran to the attack | No appearance; would dispute agency/causation | Court finds Iran/MOIS provided material support and ordered the attack; Hezbollah acted as agents; defendants liable for extrajudicial killing |
| Causation and tort claims (wrongful death, IIED, battery) | Plaintiffs suffered death, physical injury, and severe emotional distress; affidavits show PTSD and other harms | No appearance; would contest causation, elements, or timeliness | Court finds liability established for wrongful death (estate), intentional infliction of emotional distress (victims and immediate relatives), and battery (survivors who suffered physical harm) |
| Assault claim and survival action | Plaintiffs asserted assault and a survival claim for decedent’s pre‑death pain | No appearance | Assault claim denied without prejudice (no evidence of imminent apprehension in affidavits); survival claim denied without prejudice (insufficient pleading/evidence about death circumstances) |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2003) (bench trial findings tying Iran/MOIS to Hezbollah and the 1983 barracks bombing)
- Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 856 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2012) (post‑Peterson FSIA analysis and judicial‑notice approach to related litigation)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (taking judicial notice of related proceedings and concluding Iran/MOIS support of Hezbollah)
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (discussing limits and method for relying on earlier case evidence in FSIA matters)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009) (permitting IIED recovery for immediate relatives in terrorism cases)
- Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (on the scope of federal common‑law development in FSIA terrorism litigation)
- Maalouf v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 923 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (holding district courts may not raise statute‑of‑limitations defenses sua sponte against unresponsive foreign defendants)