Estate of Yonadav Hirshfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran
235 F. Supp. 3d 45
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (estate and family of Yonadav Hirshfeld) sued the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), alleging Iranian support for the terrorist killing of Hirshfeld.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and sought the Clerk’s assistance to effect service under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4) via the State Department in December 2015; the Clerk mailed documents to the State Department, which delivered them to Iran’s MFA on January 31, 2016.
- Plaintiffs later (April 2016) caused a separate mailing under § 1608(a)(3) — sending the summons, complaint, notice and translation by registered mail to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- Plaintiffs asked the court to declare service effective; the court evaluated whether Plaintiffs followed the sequence and strict requirements of § 1608(a).
- The court found Plaintiffs first attempted service under § 1608(a)(4) and only afterwards under § 1608(a)(3), contrary to the statutory sequence, and therefore denied the motion without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service under § 1608(a) was effective | Plaintiffs argued they substantially complied because both (a)(4) and later (a)(3) mailings were made and (a)(3) proved futile | Iran (through the court’s statutory reading) argued the statute requires strict sequence and Plaintiffs failed to follow it | Court held service was not effective; strict sequence required and Plaintiffs attempted (a)(4) before (a)(3) |
| Whether substantial-compliance doctrine should excuse sequence error | Plaintiffs relied on Marlowe and urged substantial compliance be applied to § 1608(a) | Court emphasized FSIA’s plain language and prior precedent requiring strict adherence | Court rejected substantial-compliance for this sequencing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Barot v. Embassy of Zambia, 785 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (FSIA service requires strict adherence)
- Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (strict compliance with FSIA service rules required)
- Marlowe v. Argentine Naval Commission, 604 F. Supp. 703 (D.D.C. 1985) (court applied substantial-compliance to a special-arrangement service provision)