588 F.Supp.3d 77
D.D.C.2022Background
- Plaintiffs hold default judgments against Iran for terrorist attacks and seek to satisfy them by attaching Iranian assets.
- Owners of the tanker MIT Achilleas and the U.S. suspected the cargo of light crude oil (the "Cargo") belonged to the IRGC/Qods Force; the U.S. obtained a seizure/arrest warrant and OFAC license.
- The United States sold the Cargo in an interlocutory sale and placed the sale proceeds (the "Proceeds") in an interest-bearing Treasury account.
- Plaintiffs obtained writs of attachment and execution against the Cargo; the Court initially granted the Writs but service was delayed until after the U.S. sale.
- The United States intervened and moved to quash, asserting it owned the Cargo/Proceeds under federal forfeiture law and that federal sovereign immunity bars attachment absent an unequivocal waiver.
- The Court reconsidered de novo and granted the U.S. motion, holding TRIA §201(a) does not unequivocally waive federal sovereign immunity and quashing the Writs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the U.S. has a property interest in the Cargo/Proceeds that blocks attachment | Cargo is Iranian property and attachable to satisfy judgments | U.S. arrested the Cargo under 18 U.S.C. §981; title vested in U.S.; Proceeds held in Treasury | U.S. holds property interest; federal sovereign immunity bars attachment |
| Whether TRIA §201(a) waives federal sovereign immunity | §201(a)'s "notwithstanding any other provision of law" abrogates immunity for blocked assets | The clause is ambiguous and does not unequivocally and expressly waive federal sovereign immunity | TRIA §201(a) does not unequivocally waive federal sovereign immunity; insufficient to overcome immunity |
| Whether Rubin controls interpretation of "provision of law" to include sovereign immunity | Rubin supports reading "provision of law" to encompass sovereign-immunity limits on attachment | Rubin addressed FSIA/foreign sovereign immunity and §1610(g), not federal sovereign immunity; context differs | Rubin is inapposite to waiver of federal sovereign immunity under TRIA |
| Validity of writs and further briefing (sur-reply) | Writs valid; plaintiffs sought leave to file sur-reply on OFAC license/TRIA status | U.S. urged quash; sur-reply unnecessary given sovereign-immunity ruling | Writs quashed; motion for sur-reply denied as irrelevant to jurisdictional holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255 (unequivocal waiver of federal sovereign immunity required)
- Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 138 S. Ct. 816 (2018) (interpreting FSIA §1610(g) and limiting its scope as tied to §1610)
- In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (assets in Treasury accounts are federal property and generally immune from attachment)
- Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 74 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 1999) (discussing TRIA, attachment, and limits on attaching U.S.-held assets)
- FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (ambiguities in waiver construed in favor of immunity)
- Neukirchen v. Wood Cnty. Head Start, Inc., 53 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 1995) (doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents attaching federal property)
- Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Rule 54(b) reconsideration authority and standards)