Habyarimana v. Kagame
2011 WL 5170243
W.D. Okla.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Madame Habyarimana and Ntaryamira sue in their/estate capacities for wrongful death, crimes against humanity, and torture related to the 1994 plane crash.
- Plaintiffs allege Kagame led RPF forces and directed missiles that downed the plane, killing Rwanda’s and Burundi’s presidents.
- Defendants include Kagame and multiple Rwandan officials and aides; venue is the Western District of Oklahoma.
- Plaintiffs failed to timely serve all defendants under Rule 4(m); Kagame opposed default and service efforts.
- Plaintiffs argued service occurred via in-person hand delivery at Oklahoma Christian University, supported by affidavits describing a meeting with Kagame’s entourage.
- Court granted Kagame’s motion to correct the caption and denied the motion for default judgment, but allowed a 120-day extension to effect service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process was valid against Kagame. | Plaintiffs substantially complied with Okla. Rule 2004(C) and served Kagame. | Service failed to comply with Rule 4(e) and Oklahoma statutory requirements. | No valid service; personal jurisdiction lacking over Kagame. |
| Whether Kagame’s actual knowledge suffices to confer jurisdiction. | Actual notice should excuse failure to perfect service. | Actual knowledge cannot substitute for proper service. | Actual knowledge does not substitute for valid service. |
| Whether Kagame is immune from suit as a foreign head of state. | Court should proceed despite immunity claims. | Kagame is immune from jurisdiction while head of state. | Executive suggests immunity; Court deferred, extended time for service, but ultimately dismissed in light of immunity finding. |
| Whether the court should extend time to effect service under Rule 4(m). | Good cause exists to extend time due to service difficulties. | Dismissal should follow for lack of timely service absent extension. | Court granted 120-day extension to attempt service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Omni Capital Intl., Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (1987) (service provides jurisdiction over person; due process considerations)
- Graff v. Kelly, 814 P.2d 489 (Okla. 1991) (three-part test for substantial compliance with service and due process)
- Hukill v. Oklahoma Native American Domestic Violence Coalition, 542 F.3d 794 (10th Cir. 2008) (clarifies Shamblin/Vance vs Graff distinctions on service)
- Shamblin v. Beasley, 967 P.2d 1200 (Okla.1998) (notice sufficiency under statutory service; due process review)
- Vance v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 988 P.2d 1275 (Okla.1999) (due process consideration for service despite statutory compliance)
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010) (FSIA does not address immunity for foreign officials; common-law immunity applies)
- The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (principle of sovereign immunity; comity)
- Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (1943) (Executive Branch immunity significance)
- Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima, S.A. v. The Navemar, 303 U.S. 68 (1938) (immunity/foreign relations considerations)
- Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) (sovereign immunity/comity in executive matters)