Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran
249 F. Supp. 3d 557
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are estates and family members of U.S. nationals and service members who allege Iran and its agents aided attacks in Iraq (2004–2011) and sued under the FSIA.
- Plaintiffs sought to serve Iran and moved the Clerk to effect service under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4) (diplomatic channels), asserting Iran has a practice of refusing mail service.
- The Court held that § 1608(a)(4) is available only after an unsuccessful § 1608(a)(3) attempt and directed Plaintiffs to make diligent efforts to serve under § 1608(a)(3).
- Plaintiffs had the Clerk dispatch translated summons, complaint, and notice of suit by DHL to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs; DHL records and a signed proof of delivery showed receipt on December 18, 2016 by an individual identified as “DABIRKHONEH.”
- The Court concluded the § 1608(a)(3) mail service requirements were met and therefore denied the request to deem service effective under § 1608(a)(4) but granted the request under § 1608(a)(3), deeming service effected on December 18, 2016.
- Iran failed to answer within 60 days; Plaintiffs obtained entry of default and the Court ordered further proceedings in a default setting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs could proceed directly to § 1608(a)(4) diplomatic service without attempting § 1608(a)(3) first | Plaintiffs argued diplomatic service was permissible because Iran routinely refuses mail service and the District Attorney Manual allows skipping to diplomatic channels for Iran | Iran did not appear to contest service; implicit defense would be that statutory sequence must be followed | Court held plaintiffs must attempt § 1608(a)(3) before § 1608(a)(4); denied service under § 1608(a)(4) |
| Whether service by mail under § 1608(a)(3) was properly effected via Clerk-dispatched DHL package to Iran’s MFA | Plaintiffs argued the Clerk mailed translated documents by DHL to the Ministry and DHL proof shows delivery and signature | No contest from Iran; potential objection would be that delivery was not to authorized recipient or was rejected in other cases | Court held § 1608(a)(3) requirements satisfied: translated documents, mailed by a method requiring signed receipt to the MFA, and delivery signed for; service effective 12/18/2016 |
| Proper date of service and consequent responsive-period calculation | Plaintiffs asserted DHL proof shows receipt date for service computation | Iran made no response | Court deemed service date the date of DHL receipt indicated in proof (12/18/2016); answer due 60 days later |
| Consequence of Iran’s failure to respond | Plaintiffs moved for default judgment following the deadline | Iran did not respond | Clerk entered default and Court directed scheduling for further default proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Barot v. Embassy of Zambia, 785 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir.) (strict adherence to § 1608(a) required when serving a foreign sovereign)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C.) (no special service arrangement with Iran; mail service under § 1608(a)(3) permissible)
- Bluth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 203 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C.) (same—Iran not party to service conventions; § 1608(a)(3) available)
- Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 902 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C.) (mail service defective where delivery was rejected at destination)