Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran
807 F. Supp. 2d 9
D.D.C.2011Background
- Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahran (1996) killed 19 U.S. personnel and wounded many; Iran-linked actors allegedly provided support to Hezbollah.
- Plaintiffs obtained judgments under FSIA’s 1605A state-sponsored terrorism provision and later amended judgments after NDAA 2008 to permit punitive damages and broader enforcement.
- Court previously found Iran’s government leaders sponsored the Khobar attack (Heiser I) and later entered additional judgments totaling hundreds of millions.
- Post-judgment efforts sought to garnish funds Sprint owes TIC (an Iranian instrumentality) under §1610(g) of the FSIA.
- Sprint asserted TIC was not an instrumentality, argued amount was not fixed, and raised double-liability and preemption concerns.
- Court ultimately held TIC is an instrumentality of Iran and ordered Sprint to turnover $613,587.38, denied interpleader, rejected preemption and license objections, and addressed double-liability protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TIC is an agency or instrumentality of Iran for attachment under §1610(g). | TIC is controlled by Iran and functions as an instrumentality. | TIC is not an instrumentality; separate entity. | TIC is an instrumentality of Iran. |
| What is the total amount subject to the writ against Sprint? | Amounts owed to TIC are determinable and payable. | The amount owed is uncertain and contingent. | $613,587.38 determined; amounts accruing after March 2011 not yet determined. |
| Whether Sprint is protected from double liability under §1610(g)(3). | Court should enforce judgment despite potential dual liability. | DC law protections prevent double liability. | Sprint adequately protected; no double liability risk established. |
| Whether Sprint’s interpleader request should be granted. | Interpleader needed to resolve TIC’s status and avoid liability. | Interpleader unnecessary; TIC already determined; service issues minor. | Interpleader denied. |
| Whether OFAC regulations preempt enforcement of the FSIA judgment under §1610(g). | §1610(g) broadens enforceable assets, overriding OFAC licensing. | OFAC licensing preempts or overrides suit. | No preemption; §1610(g) controls and NDAA aims to expand enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983) (instrumentality presumption and separate entity principles)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) (ownership and control of foreign entities; corporate separateness)
- In re Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (NDAA 1610(g) expansion and enforcement against foreign-state property)
- Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 604 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2009) (section 1610(g) scope and attachment of instrumentality property)
- Weininger v. Castro, 462 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (TRIA and blocked assets enforcement context)
- Elahi v. Ministry of Defense & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 129 S. Ct. 1732 (2009) (Supreme Court on related Iran-related enforcement issues)