Estate of Botvin Ex Rel. Ellis v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31213
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Estate of Yael Botvin and relatives sue Iran and its agencies under FSIA for a 1997 Hamas bombing in Jerusalem that killed Yael Botvin.
- Court previously held DC choice-of-law rules apply, leading to Israeli law governing substantive claims; default judgment denied without prejudice.
- Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration to apply California or DC law to liability and damages, or at least damages under Israeli law.
- Court must determine which law governs liability and damages, and whether plaintiffs are entitled to a default judgment under foreign-state standards.
- Court confirms Israeli law governs issues of liability and damages, and denies renewed default-judgment request without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs liability? | Botvin argues California or DC law should apply to liability. | Iran argues Israeli law governs liability under DC choice-of-law rules. | Israeli law governs liability. |
| Have plaintiffs proven vicarious liability under Israeli law? | Defendants materially supported Hamas; Campuzano findings show agency. | No express authorization/ratification shown; Campuzano findings insufficient for Israeli vicarious liability. | Plaintiffs have not established vicarious liability under Israeli law. |
| If liability were established, would damages be governed by Israeli law or some other law? | U.S. interest warrants domestic damages law; California/DC damages could apply. | DC/California laws not applicable; Israeli law governs damages for this case. | Israeli law would govern damages. |
| Is relief by default judgment appropriate against a foreign state here? | Default judgment should be entered under Israeli-law liability. | Evidence insufficient to prove liability; default judgment inappropriate. | Motion for default judgment denied without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 573 F.3d 835 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (dc choice-of-law framework in terrorism context; domestic-law interest not absolute)