581 F.Supp.3d 152
D.D.C.2022Background
- Thirteen contractor plaintiffs (employees of U.S. contractors) and numerous immediate-family plaintiffs sued Iran for injuries from explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks in Iraq between 2004–2011; plaintiffs served Iran via diplomatic channels and Iran defaulted.
- Plaintiffs sought default judgment under the FSIA terrorism exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605A) and, for family members, state-law IIED claims under D.C. law.
- The court took judicial notice of expert reports and transcripts from related EFP cases (notably Karcher and Lee) and qualified several experts on EFPs, Iraqi insurgent networks, and IRGC/Qods Force activity.
- Based on affidavits, expert opinion, and prior findings, the court found Iran (through the IRGC/Qods Force) materially supported proxy Special Groups with funding, training, and EFP materiel and held Iran responsible for the listed EFP attacks.
- The court concluded it has subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1605A(a)(1), and personal jurisdiction was satisfied by service under § 1608(a)(4).
- Ruling: default judgment entered for Contractor Plaintiffs and U.S.-citizen Mughal plaintiffs under § 1605A(c); default judgment denied as to Family Member Plaintiffs’ IIED claims because D.C. choice-of-law precludes applying D.C. law and plaintiffs submitted no foreign-law proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under FSIA §1605A (terrorism exception) | Plaintiffs: Iran is a designated state sponsor; plaintiffs (contractors and a U.S. citizen) were injured by EFPs; Iran materially supported attacks | Iran did not appear | Held: Court has jurisdiction—plaintiffs proved material support by IRGC/Qods Force, attacks qualify as (attempted) extrajudicial killings, and causation established. |
| Material support and causation | Plaintiffs: IRGC/Qods provided funding, training, weapons, and EFP components that were proximate cause of injuries | Iran did not appear | Held: Experts and military forensics show IRGC/Qods materially supported EFP program; support was a substantial and foreseeable cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. |
| Personal jurisdiction / service under FSIA §1608 | Plaintiffs: attempted mailing failed; served via diplomatic channels under §1608(a)(4) | N/A (no appearance) | Held: Service via diplomatic note complied with §1608(a)(4); personal jurisdiction satisfied for default judgment. |
| Default judgment evidentiary standard | Plaintiffs: submitted affidavits and experts; court may rely on less-than-normal quantum of evidence in FSIA defaults | N/A | Held: Court made independent findings of fact, accepted expert evidence and judicially noticed related proceedings; granted default judgment as to qualifying FSIA claimants. |
| Family-member IIED claims and choice-of-law | Plaintiffs: apply D.C. IIED law | Iran did not appear to contest | Held: Denied for lack of default judgment on IIED claims because D.C. choice-of-law disfavors applying D.C. law (injuries and conduct centered abroad); plaintiffs failed to submit British, South African, or Iraqi law evidence. |
| Statute of limitations | Plaintiffs: claims timely or limitations waived by default | Iran did not appear | Held: Court will not raise limitations defense sua sponte where defendant defaulted; limitations defense forfeited by Iran’s nonappearance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (default judgment against foreign defendants is not automatic)
- Jerez v. Republic of Cuba, 775 F.3d 419 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (FSIA §1608(e) requires claimant establish entitlement to default relief)
- Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (trial court discretion on quantity and kind of evidence in FSIA defaults)
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (proximate-cause standard and FSIA evidentiary guidance)
- Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 140 S. Ct. 1601 (2020) (supreme court decision relevant to FSIA remedies/procedures)
- Lee v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 3d 475 (D.D.C. 2021) (EFPs, IRGC/Qods Force support, and FSIA terrorism-exception analysis)
- Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 396 F. Supp. 3d 12 (D.D.C. 2019) (bench trial findings on IRGC/Qods and EFP program; precedent for judicial notice)
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (default-judgment evidence and judicial notice of related proceedings)
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989) (FSIA is sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states)
- Maalouf v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 923 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (defendant’s nonappearance forfeits statute-of-limitations defense)