Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran
947 F. Supp. 2d 48
D.D.C.2013Background
- Four Mohammadi siblings sue Iran, Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and IRGC under FSIA, ATS, and TVPA for torture, extrajudicial killing, and related harms to Akbar Mohammadi and family.
- Plaintiffs allege Akbar was tortured and killed in Tehran; Manouchehr, Nasrin, and Simin claim injuries and ongoing harassment in the U.S.
- Court appointed/entered default against all defendants; plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.
- Evidentiary hearing held April 4, 2013; plaintiffs submitted affidavits and testimony on liability/damages.
- Court questions subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; ultimately concludes FSIA/ATS claims lack jurisdiction against Iran and IRGC; individual defendants’ status analyzed under Samantar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA provides subject-matter jurisdiction over Iran/IRGC | Plaintiffs contend FSIA terrorism exception permits suit | Defendants maintain FSIA immunity applies to foreign states | Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Iran/IRGC claims |
| Whether ATS provides subject-matter jurisdiction | Kiobel-like reasoning supports ATS jurisdiction for conduct abroad | Kiobel presumption against extraterritoriality bars ATS claims here | ATS claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Kiobel framework |
| Whether Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are proper parties (real party in interest) | Suing them in official capacity; acts attributable to regime | Iran is real party in interest; officials immune under Samantar framework | Iran is real party in interest; claims against Khamenei/Ahmadinejad treated as against Iran; jurisdiction lacking under FSIA |
| Whether there is personal jurisdiction over Khamenei/Ahmadinejad | Ongoing regime harassment in U.S. constitutes contacts | No sufficient minimum contacts or purposeful direction; due process not satisfied | Personal jurisdiction not established; default judgment inappropriate under jurisdictional defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (U.S. 2013) (presumption against extraterritoriality governs ATS claims; conduct abroad unless touch and concern US with force)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (defines limits of ATS and definite norms of international law)
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (U.S. 2010) (FSIA does not govern immunity of individual foreign officials; common-law immunity applies)
- Lin v. United States, 561 F.3d 502 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (nationality determinations require birth or naturalization; permanent allegiance alone insufficient)
- Wani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (discusses specific personal jurisdiction limits in terrorism cases)
- Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (torture as a threshold for FSIA/Terrorism exception; limits on scope)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (pre-2008 FSIA framework; nationality discussions re: ‘national’ status)
- Abou-Haidar v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 206 (1st Cir. 2006) (definition of national under immigration context)