Michelle Van Beneden v. Abdallah Al-Sanusi
404 U.S. App. D.C. 223
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Knowland was injured in the Vienna airport attack in 1985, part of coordinated Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) attacks in Europe.
- Knowland sued Syria, Libya, and related individuals/entities in the U.S. for sponsoring the attacks; the district court dismissed as untimely.
- The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) generally shields foreign states, with a 1605A terrorism exception providing a private right of action against sovereigns for personal injury or death.
- NDAA 2008 repealed 1605(a)(7) and created 1605A, which is more plaintiff-friendly and allows actions against sovereigns; it also permits related actions from 1605(a)(7) suits under certain conditions.
- If a 1605(a)(7) action is timely and relates to the same incident, related actions may be brought under 1605A within the NDAA framework, creating a path for Knowland's case.
- District court held Buonocore was not a related action; the appellate court reviews this de novo to determine if relatedness exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the Vienna and Rome attacks the same incident for related-action purposes? | Knowland argues the Rome and Vienna attacks were planned together by the same group and therefore constitute one incident. | Syria contends the attacks were separate acts/incidents because of different locations, actors, and victims. | Yes; the attacks are the same incident. |
| Is Buonocore a related action to Knowland under §1083(c)(3)? | Buonocore is timely and related to Knowland’s §1605(a)(7) claim, enabling later 1605A action. | The district court found the actions not related; no related-action basis exists. | Yes; Buonocore is a related action. |
| Does the NDAA's related-action provision apply to convert or relate claims from 1605(a)(7) to 1605A? | Related-action provisions permit conversion/relocation of claims to 1605A where timely or related. | The related-action mechanism is limited and does not automatically salvage untimely claims. | The related-action framework applies to permit related 1605A action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21 (1986) (relation back when notice is preserved)
- Meijer, Inc. v. Biovail Corp., 533 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (relation back and related-action concepts in timing)
- Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (private action realm under FSIA after 1605A)
- Doe v. Bin Laden, 663 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation broadens scope of terrorism exception)
- Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. 848 (2009) (Beaty confirms NDAA framework for terrorism-related suits)