Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9390
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs, a U.S. national Malka Roth’s estate and her Israeli family, sue Iran and MOIS under FSIA 1605A for injuries from the August 9, 2001 Jerusalem bombing.
- Defendants Iran and MOIS defaulted; no appearance or defense; court may enter default judgment under 1608(e).
- Court may take judicial notice of related FSIA cases (Greenbaum, Campuzano, Peterson) and evidence from those proceedings.
- Evidence shows MOIS served as Iran’s conduit for financing/training Hamas; Iran supported terrorism in the period leading to the attack.
- Court finds MOIS a governmental entity for FSIA purposes and Iran a state sponsor; action timely under 1605A(b); service proper under 1608(a)(4).
- Damages sought include wrongful death economic losses, survival/IIED-like solatium, and punitive damages; estate and family members are proper plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA 1605A applies to Iran and MOIS and grants jurisdiction | Roth asserts 1605A waives immunity for state sponsors of terrorism. | Iran/MOIS contest jurisdiction or argue immunity applies absent valid basis. | Yes; 1605A applies and waives immunity here. |
| Whether MOIS is a foreign state or instrumental for purposes of 1603(a) | MOIS is a conduit/division of Iran performing governmental functions; thus a foreign state. | MOIS is an agency; status contested. | MOIS treated as foreign state; jurisdiction proper under 1330(a). |
| Whether service under FSIA 1608(a)4 was proper | Mail to Secretary of State with translation satisfied 1608(a)(4) and was transmitted via Swiss channel. | Service validity contested; must show proper method. | Service properly effected; personal jurisdiction obtained. |
| What damages are recoverable and the amount under 1605A(c) | Plaintiffs seek wrongful death economic losses, survival/solatium, IIED, and punitive damages. | Defendants contest amounts and framework for calculating damages. | Liability found; compensatory $18,691,019 and punitive $112,500,000 awarded. |
| Standing and capacity to sue on behalf of Elisheva Roth (incompetent individual) | Arnold and Frimet Roth may sue as Elisheva’s next friend. | Capacity to sue contested; potential Rule 17 issues. | Arnold and Frimet may sue Elisheva as her next friend; capacity issue resolved in plaintiffs’ favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (court may rely on prior related FSIA evidence with scrutiny)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2003) (MOIS as conduit; agency/foreign state status)
- Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D.D.C. 2003) (evidence of Iranian support and leadership approval)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (elements and damages framework under 1605A; proximate cause standard)
- Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2009) (framework for calculating solatium/IIED damages and deterrence)