Gill v. Islamic Republic of Iran
249 F. Supp. 3d 88
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mati Gill, a U.S.-Israeli dual citizen and aide to Israel’s Minister of Public Security, was shot and injured during a shooting attack near the Gaza border on April 4, 2008.
- Gill sued the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, alleging Iran provided material support to Hamas, which carried out the attack.
- Iran did not appear; service was effected through diplomatic channels under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4), and the Clerk entered default.
- The court considered Gill’s sworn declarations and expert declarations establishing (a) Iran’s longstanding material support for Hamas, and (b) Hamas’s public claims and video evidence attributing the April 4 attack to Hamas operatives.
- The court treated the attack as an attempted extrajudicial killing and concluded Iran waived sovereign immunity under the FSIA terrorism exception, found personal jurisdiction, and held Iran vicariously liable for assault and battery through a civil-conspiracy theory.
- Damages awarded: $7.5 million compensatory and $22.5 million punitive (total $30 million), based on comparable FSIA awards and a 3x punitive multiplier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FSIA terrorism exception waives Iran’s sovereign immunity for Gill’s claim | Gill: Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism in 2008 and 2015, provided material support to Hamas, and the Hamas attack was an attempted extrajudicial killing causing Gill’s injuries | Iran: (no appearance / defaulted) implicitly disputed by nonappearance; Court considered legal limits on extrajudicial-killing claims where no death occurred | Court: Waiver applies—the attack qualifies as an attempted extrajudicial killing under the TVPA definition adopted by §1605A, so immunity is waived |
| Whether service and personal jurisdiction under §1608 were satisfied | Gill: Proper diplomatic service under §1608(a)(4) via the State Dept. and Swiss Interests Section | Iran: (no appearance) | Court: Service was proper and personal jurisdiction exists under §1330(b) and §1608 |
| Whether Iran is liable for Gill’s injuries (causation and basis for liability) | Gill: Iran’s material support to Hamas renders Iran vicariously liable via civil conspiracy; Hamas committed assault/battery causing injuries | Iran: (no appearance) | Court: Sufficient uncontroverted evidence supports civil conspiracy, vicarious liability, and tort liability for assault and battery |
| Appropriate damages (compensatory and punitive) | Gill: Requested $10M compensatory and $30M punitive (Complaint asked $30M punitive; later submissions sought more) | Iran: (no appearance) | Court: Awarded $7.5M compensatory (following FSIA precedent baselines) and $22.5M punitive (3x multiplier on compensatory), totaling $30M |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (historical analysis of FSIA terrorism exception and its evolution)
- Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Congress intended the terrorism exception to bring state sponsors to account; ambiguities construed broadly)
- Van Beneden v. Al-Sanusi, 709 F.3d 1165 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (statutory text and purpose support a flexible, capacious reading of FSIA terrorism exception)
- Warfaa v. Ali, 811 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 2016) (Torture Victim Protection Act claim allowed for attempted extrajudicial killing; supports liability without death)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (acts of terrorism can constitute assault under FSIA; vicarious liability and damages framework)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (baseline compensatory awards for severe physical and psychological injuries under FSIA)
- Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 882 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2012) (illustrative compensatory and punitive damages methodology and comparators)
- Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 907 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2012) (evidence of Iran’s substantial support for Hamas and causation principles under §1605A)