Estate of Yonadav Hirshfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Civil Action No. 2015-1082
| D.D.C. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are the estate, heirs, and family of Yonadav Hirshfeld, killed in a 2008 terrorist shooting in Jerusalem; they sued the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
- FSIA §1608(a) prescribes a hierarchy for serving a foreign state: (1) special arrangement, (2) applicable convention, (3) mail to foreign ministry, (4) diplomatic channels via the U.S. Department of State; service must be strictly sequential.
- Plaintiffs attempted service under §1608(a)(4) via the Clerk on Dec. 14, 2015 (diplomatic transmission) and later under §1608(a)(3) via registered mail on April 12, 2016; the §1608(a)(3) mailing was returned as undeliverable.
- The Court initially denied Plaintiffs’ May 2016 motion to deem service effective because Plaintiffs had not followed the statutory sequence (required strict adherence per D.C. Circuit precedent) and ordered Plaintiffs to effectuate service properly.
- Plaintiffs then completed §1608(a)(3) steps (attempted registered mail) and §1608(a)(4) diplomatic transmission; the Department of State certified transmission on April 4, 2017, although Iran refused reception.
- The Court held that §1608(c) deems service effective as of the diplomatic transmittal date; it therefore granted Plaintiffs’ motion, deemed Iran served on April 4, 2017, and noted Iran failed to answer, resulting in Clerk’s entry of default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs effected service on Iran under FSIA §1608 | Plaintiffs contended they satisfied §1608(a)(3) (registered mail to MFA) and §1608(a)(4) (diplomatic transmission) and thus service is effective under §1608(c) as of transmittal | Iran did not appear to contest; implicitly, any defect would be failure to follow §1608(a) sequence | Court held Plaintiffs cured the sequencing defect, complied strictly with §1608(a), and service was perfected under §1608(c) on April 4, 2017 |
| Whether refusal to accept service defeats service under §1608(a)(4)/§1608(c) | Plaintiffs argued refusal does not prevent effectiveness; §1608(c) fixes service date at transmittal | Iran refused reception (factual) but offered no legal argument | Court held §1608(c) governs; service is effective on date of diplomatic transmittal despite refusal |
| Whether substantial compliance suffices instead of strict adherence to §1608(a) | Plaintiffs previously argued substantial compliance; after direction they followed sequence | Court had previously rejected substantial compliance argument based on D.C. Circuit precedent | Court reiterated requirement of strict adherence and found Plaintiffs ultimately complied |
| Whether default was properly entered after service | Plaintiffs moved for default after Iran failed to respond | Iran did not respond to the suit or contest service | Court confirmed Iran was required to answer within 60 days and default was entered; scheduling order to follow |
Key Cases Cited
- Barot v. Embassy of Zambia, 785 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (requires strict adherence to §1608(a) when serving a foreign sovereign)
- Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (interpreting strict sequence requirements for FSIA service)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (service under §1608(a)(4) effective upon diplomatic transmittal even where Iran refused reception)
- Bluth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 203 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016) (recognizing absence of special service arrangements and inapplicability of service conventions with Iran)