919 F. Supp. 2d 43
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege non-consensual human medical experimentation in Guatemala (1946–1953) and extended testing by US/Guatemalan officials, under ATS and the Constitution.
- Defendant Mirta Roses previously faced default and the court conditioned vacatur on her reimbursement of plaintiffs’ fees and costs.
- The court later held Roses had absolute immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) as PAHO Director, dismissing claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs appealed the 2012 order; the court ordered supplemental briefing on costs/ vacatur compatibility with IOIA immunity.
- Court concluded the Clerk’s entry of default was void from the outset due to Roses’s IOIA immunity, and declined to impose costs as a condition of vacatur.
- The June 13, 2012 memorandum opinion was vacated in part; the Clerk’s entry of default was stricken, and the case proceeded with immunity intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default against Roses was void due to IOIA immunity | Plaintiffs argue default could be maintained and costs imposed despite immunity. | Roses contends IOIA immunity bars jurisdiction and default sanctions. | Default void; immunity bars jurisdiction and sanctions. |
| Whether costs can be conditioned on vacatur where immunity applies | Costs could be conditioned to avoid prejudice from Roses’s default. | IOIA immunity precludes any conditioning that burdens immunity. | Conditioning on costs is inappropriate; vacatur cannot be conditioned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swarna v. Al-Awadi, 622 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (immunity must be addressed before entry of default)
- Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (IOIA immunity is immunity from the litigation process)
- Steinberg v. Intl. Criminal Police Org., 103 F.R.D. 392 (D.D.C. 1984) (appearance not mandatory to invoke immunity; sanctions possible for non-appearance in other contexts)
- Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (even without appearance, courts determine immunity applicability)
- Inversora Murten, S.A. v. Energoprojekt Holding Co., 264 F. App’x 13 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (IOIA immunity is immunity from litigation, not from outcome)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (sua sponte consideration of immunity in absence of appearance)