Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120168
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- Amir Reza Oveissi sues Iran and MOIS under the FSIA state-sponsored terrorism exception for his grandfather's murder in Paris in 1984.
- Initial Oveissi I decision dismissed claims; the D.C. Circuit reversed, directing application of French law rather than California law on liability.
- This case on remand finds Iran and MOIS liable under French tort law for the murder through vicarious liability.
- Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, satisfying waiver conditions for immunity under the FSIA.
- The Court adopts French tort principles (Articles 1382-84) to evaluate liability, including la responsabilité du fait d’autrui and damages for emotional and financial harm.
- An evidentiary hearing is ordered to determine damages, with pre-hearing submissions required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs liability? | Oveissi II directs French law applies. | U.S. interests justify applying U.S. law or prior use of forum standards. | French law applies to liability. |
| Does FSIA permit suit against Iran and MOIS here? | State sponsors of terrorism are waivable under FSIA; plaintiff is a U.S. citizen. | Immunity and conditions require analysis of waiver criteria. | FSIA waiver satisfied; suit permitted. |
| Can plaintiff state a French-law tort claim for wrongful death and emotional distress? | French tort principles allow recovery for harm from a relative's death and distress. | California standing barriers and common-law wrongful death limits apply. | Plaintiff may state claims under French law; standing and remedies are viable. |
| Are Iran and MOIS vicariously liable for the agents' acts? | Agency relationship existed; agents acted under MOIS and Iran's direction. | Lack of direct fault by state could bar vicarious liability. | Yes; la responsabilité du fait d'autrui applies; defendants are liable. |
| What procedural step is required to resolve damages? | Damages need evidentiary determination. | Damages are separate from liability and require proof. | An evidentiary hearing on damages is ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 498 F. Supp. 2d 268 (D.D.C. 2007) (initial liability and choice-of-law framework; wrongful death/intentional infliction claims)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 573 F.3d 835 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (reversed on forum choice-of-law; directs French law on liability)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (uncontroverted facts and judicial notice in FSIA defaults analysis)
- Dammarell v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2003) (foreign state liability; agency and causation under FSIA)
- La Bourgogne, 210 U.S. 95 (1908) (French wrongful death recognition under U.S. law)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (standing under California law for wrongful death; informational)