Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic
396 U.S. App. D.C. 128
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Families of two American contractors beheaded in Iraq sued Syria and related officials under FSIA for material support to terrorists.
- Syria did not respond; clerk entered default against Syria and district court held a three-day evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e).
- NDAA § 1083(a) repealed § 1605(a)(7) and created § 1605A; § 1083(c)(2) permitted conversion of pending § 1605(a)(7) actions to § 1605A.
- District court granted conversion, allowed proceeding under § 1605A, and later entered a default judgment exceeding $400 million.
- Syria appealed; district court’s later Rule 60(b) Order denied voidness under 60(b)(4) but contemplated remand for further relief; this court consolidated the appeal.
- Question presented whether service-of-process reform occurred under NDAA conversion and whether remand was needed or whether service was proper under FSIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Syria validly received service of process under FSIA § 1608(a)(3). | Service complied; DHL delivery evidence supports receipt. | Delivery to DHL and lack of actual receipt undermines service; doubt as to validity. | Service valid; district court did not clearly err in finding receipt. |
| Whether § 1083(c)(2) conversion of § 1605(a)(7) to § 1605A creates a 'new claim' requiring new service. | Converted claim not a new claim; should not require new service. | Converted § 1605A claims require new service under Rule 5(a)(2). | Converted claim is not a 'new claim'; no new service required. |
| Whether Rule 5(a)(2) governs service when FSIA provides specific service provisions. | FSIA's special service rule supersedes Rule 5(a)(2). | Rule 5(a)(2) applies to new pleadings; conversion triggers service requirements. | FSIA-specific service governs; Rule 5(a)(2) does not apply here. |
| Whether remand was required to vacate or modify the district court’s conversions and judgments. | No remand needed; § 1083 conversion governs, no new service. | Remand appropriate to address potential relief under Rule 60(b). | Remand not required; affirm the judgment and conversion approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoai v. Vo, 935 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (remand to permit 60(b) relief when pending appeal)
- Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 389 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (clear-burden standard for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (FSIA exceptions and jurisdictional issues with foreign states)
- Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (NDAA § 1083(a) constitutionality and conversion guidance)
- Beaty, 129 S. Ct. 2183 (Supreme Court 2009) (Beaty discusses NDAA § 1083 interplay with § 1605A)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1995) (ripe concerns about constitutional process and judgments)