Estate of John Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran
808 F. Supp. 2d 1
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- 1983 and 1984 terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy and Embassy Annex in Beirut, causing dozens of deaths and injuries.
- Plaintiffs are 58 foreign national employees of the U.S. Government and 255 immediate family members seeking damages under the 2008 NDAA amendments to FSIA.
- The 2008 NDAA created a federal private right of action under § 1605A for state sponsors of terrorism against eligible victims and their representatives.
- This case is a Related Action arising from the same Beirut attacks as earlier Dammarell, Wagner, Salazar, and Welch proceedings.
- Defendants Iran and MOIS are alleged to have provided material support and direction to Hizballah, proximate to the 1983/1984 bombings.
- Default judgments were entered after proper service; the court evaluates liability and damages under § 1605A(c) and related state/foreign law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA § 1605A applies to this action. | Becomes federal claim under §1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii). | Cicippio-Puleo controls; no federal cause of action for non-U.S. national family members. | §1605A applies to federal claims by U.S. government employees and their immediate family; non-U.S. national family members lack federal cause of action. |
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Iran and MOIS. | Iran designated as a state sponsor; acts fall within extrajudicial killing and material support. | Immunity and procedural hurdles prevent jurisdiction; service validity contested. | Jurisdiction established under § 1605A; service proper; state sponsor of terrorism exception satisfied. |
| Whether the attacks were 'extrajudicial killings' and 'material support' sufficient to satisfy § 1605A(a)(1) and (a)(1)/(h). | Beirut bombings were deliberate killings with Iranian direction and MOIS support; defines extrajudicial killing and material support. | Disputes over intent and link to Iran; need to re-litigate causation. | Yes, attacks qualify as extrajudicial killings and defendants provided material support to Hizballah, satisfying § 1605A(a)(1) and (h). |
| Does § 1605A(c) create a federal damages remedy for the identified plaintiffs? | Family members seek solatium/pain and suffering under federal statute. | Non-U.S. national family members fall outside the four categories in §1605A(c)(1)-(4). | Non-U.S. national family members lack federal §1605A(c) claims; may pursue state/foreign-law claims. |
| What law governs the non-federal claims and choice-of-law analysis for uniform damages? | Congress intended uniform damages and forum-state law should apply due to 2008 amendments. | Lebanon law or domicile-specific law should apply; potential conflicts drive different results. | District of Columbia law governs non-federal claims; choice-of-law favors forum and uniformity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Flatow/FSIA limitations; no federal cause of action absent explicit waiver)
- Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (abrogated on other grounds; discusses § 1605A structure and liability)
- Kilburn v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 376 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (proximate causation standard in terrorism context)
- Dammarell v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2003) (establishes Iran/MOIS support and extrajudicial killings underpinning liability)
- Wagner v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 172 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2001) (Iran-directed 1984 Beirut attack; material support analysis)
- Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005) (3 83 attack; jurisdiction and liability under terrorism exception)
- Brewer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 664 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2009) (reaffirms material support causation and damages framework)
- Dammarell I, 281 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D.D.C. 2003) (defines extrajudicial killing in FSIA context)