Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
810 F. Supp. 2d 402
D. Mass.2011Background
- Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against Iran and related defendants and sought trustee-process attachment of antiquities held by the Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard University believed to be Iran’s property.
- The Museums contest that the antiquities in their possession are immune from execution under the FSIA and seek dissolution of attachments.
- TRIA § 201(a) permits execution/attachment of “blocked assets” of a terrorist party where the judgment is for an act of terrorism, but TRIA does not specify a mechanism for attachment; Rule 69 governs enforcement.
- The court previously held the antiquities immune from FSIA execution but potentially reachable under TRIA as blocked assets, subject to showing they are Iran’s property.
- Massachusetts trustee-process procedure requires the plaintiff to prove the trustee actually holds the defendant’s goods, effects, or credits, and to prove those items are the defendant’s property.
- The court concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove any specific item was Iran’s property subject to attachment; ownership arguments based on the 1930 Law and the 1928 Civil Code Article 26 were unpersuasive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trustee process can attach the Museums’ holdings as Iran’s property. | Rubin argues the items are Iran’s property and within TRIA’s reach. | Museums contend the items are not Iran’s property and are immune under FSIA. | No; plaintiffs failed to prove the items are Iran’s property. |
| Whether the TRIA framework or cited Iranian laws vest ownership in Iran for these antiquities. | Antiquities originated in Iran and are owned by Iran per TRIA and Iranian law. | No clear evidence that ownership rests in Iran; 1930 Law and Article 26 do not establish private or government ownership for these items. | TRIA and cited laws do not establish Iran’s ownership of the specific items. |
| Whether the burden of proof shifts under TRIA in trustee-process attachments. | TRIA may shift focus to blocked assets as executory property. | Burden remains on creditor to show possession of defendant’s property. | Burden remains on plaintiff to show items are property of the defendant. |
| What is the court’s ruling on the attachments themselves. | Attachment should proceed to satisfy judgment. | Attachments should be dissolved as no property of Iran was shown. | Attachments dissolved; motions to dissolve granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan Marsh Co. v. Hale, 219 Mass. 495, 107 N.E. 357 (Mass. 1914) (burden of proof on plaintiff in trustee process to show possession of debtor’s goods)
- Porter v. Stevens, 63 Mass. (9 Cush.) 530 (Mass. 1852) (burden of proof on plaintiff to prove trustee possession)
- Van Camp Hardware & Iron Co. v. Plimpton, 174 Mass. 208, 54 N.E. 538 (Mass. 1899) (trustee-process burden on showing goods or credits belong to debtor)
- Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011) (ownership/readings of contractor’s invention; supports interpretation of ownership terms)