374 F. Supp. 3d 37
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- In May 2017 Kurdish protesters in Washington, D.C. demonstrated against President Erdogan; a pro‑Erdogan group (including civilian defendants Eyup Yildirim, Sinan Narin, Alpkenan Dereci and Turkish security personnel) confronted them at the Turkish Ambassador’s Residence and allegedly attacked protesters in two episodes, breaking through police lines.
- Plaintiffs (15 individuals) sued multiple defendants including the three civilian defendants, asserting claims of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), hate crimes under D.C. Code § 22‑3704, and civil‑rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Criminal charges were later brought against some participants; Yildirim and Narin pled guilty to assault with significant bodily injury.
- The three civilian defendants moved to partially dismiss. The court evaluated whether Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts under Rule 12(b)(6) to state each claim against Yildirim, Narin, and Dereci.
- The court denied dismissal of most claims, finding Plaintiffs adequately alleged assault, aiding‑and‑abetting battery (but not conspiracy‑based battery), IIED for most plaintiffs (but dismissed Kheirabadi’s IIED claim for failure to plead severe distress), and hate‑crime claims under § 22‑3704 based on assaults and aiding/abetting battery.
- The court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs’ conspiracy theory of battery and all § 1985 conspiracy claims against these three civilians for failure to plead a plausible agreement (and noted § 1985 deprivation clause requires state action).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault (Count 1) | Plaintiffs allege defendants twice pushed past police and attacked or threatened protesters, creating reasonable apprehension of harmful contact. | Defendants argue plaintiffs rely on group/scene allegations and mere presence, failing to plead threats or intentional acts as to each plaintiff. | Denied dismissal: court finds plaintiffs pleaded intentional acts and apprehension sufficient at motion‑to‑dismiss stage. |
| Battery — aiding & abetting vs. conspiracy (Count 2) | Plaintiffs allege aiding/abetting and conspiracy theories; aiding/abetting by creating a violent "free‑for‑all." | Defendants argue D.C. law does not recognize aiding/abetting for common law torts and plaintiffs fail to plead substantial assistance or an agreement. | Aiding & abetting: permitted under Halberstam and plausibly pleaded — claim survives. Conspiracy: plaintiffs fail to plead facts showing an agreement — conspiracy theory dismissed without prejudice. |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 4) | Plaintiffs contend repeated, coordinated assaults, threats, slurs, and attacks by government‑aligned actors were extreme/outrageous and caused severe distress. | Defendants contend allegations do not meet the extreme/outrageous standard or show intent directed at each plaintiff; some plaintiffs’ distress allegations are conclusory. | Denied dismissal for 11 plaintiffs: conduct and harm plausibly plead. Kheirabadi’s IIED claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege specific severe emotional distress; leave to amend. |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy (Count 7) | Plaintiffs allege civilian defendants conspired to (a) deprive plaintiffs of First Amendment rights and (b) prevent police from protecting those rights. | Defendants argue § 1985 deprivation requires state action and plaintiffs fail to plead a concrete agreement to violate civil rights. | Granted dismissal without prejudice: deprivation clause requires state action (none alleged); even assuming prevention clause could apply to private actors, plaintiffs fail to plead a plausible agreement specifically aimed at curtailing First Amendment rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading conspiracy and agreement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; legal conclusions insufficient)
- Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (recognizing actionable aiding‑and‑abetting theory under D.C. law)
- Flax v. Schertler, 935 A.2d 1091 (D.C. 2007) (discussed as District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision on aiding‑and‑abetting recognition in legal‑malpractice context)
- Aboye v. U.S., 121 A.3d 1245 (D.C. 2015) (broad construction of "designated act" for D.C. hate‑crime statute)
- Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (discussed the scope of § 1985(3) clauses; court declined to decide whether prevention clause requires state action)