891 F.3d 6
1st Cir.2018Background
- In 2009 a Maine Superior Court entered default judgment for Sherry Sullivan against the Republic of Cuba for the alleged extrajudicial killing of her father, a purported covert U.S. agent, awarding $21 million. Cuba had been served but did not appear.
- Sullivan sought to enforce that state-court default judgment in federal district court in 2016; Cuba again did not appear and Sullivan moved for default judgment in federal court.
- The federal district court questioned whether the Maine court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) terrorism exception and ordered additional briefing and a hearing.
- At the hearing Sullivan offered second- and third-hand evidence (family letters, compiled sightings, a guard affidavit, FOIA-type documents) purporting to show her father was captured in Cuba and incarcerated into the 1990s; no direct evidence of an intentional, extrajudicial killing was presented.
- The district court denied default judgment and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding Sullivan failed to prove an "extrajudicial killing" as required by the FSIA terrorism exception; Sullivan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal court enforcing a state default judgment must defer to the state court's jurisdictional findings under the Full Faith and Credit Act | Sullivan: FFCA requires federal court to accept Maine court's factual finding that an extrajudicial killing occurred | Cuba: Federal court may independently review whether FSIA exception applies; state default cannot foreclose jurisdictional inquiry | Federal court may independently review subject-matter jurisdiction; no FFCA bar to inquiry |
| Whether the terrorism exception to FSIA applies (i.e., was there an "extrajudicial killing") | Sullivan: Maine court already found imprisonment culminated in legally-declared death amounting to extrajudicial killing; additional evidence and Cuba's nonappearance support exception | Cuba: No evidence of a deliberated killing without legal process; state designation timing and substance insufficient | Court held Sullivan failed to prove an "extrajudicial killing"; terrorism exception not established |
| Whether the federal court abused discretion by requiring evidence beyond the state-court findings before entering default | Sullivan: District court improperly "looked behind" state judgment and should have granted default | Cuba: District court properly examined jurisdictional predicate to suit against a foreign sovereign | Court affirmed district court's independent jurisdictional review and denial of default |
| Applicability of relaxed evidentiary standard for default judgments against designated state sponsors of terror (as in Han Kim) | Sullivan: Han Kim supports a lowered evidentiary burden when the defendant is a state sponsor of terrorism that refuses to participate | Cuba: Han Kim is distinguishable and does not excuse lack of proof here | Court declined to adopt a relaxed standard here and found Sullivan would fail even under a relaxed test |
Key Cases Cited
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (FSIA provides the sole basis for jurisdiction over a foreign state)
- Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (presumption of foreign sovereign immunity under FSIA)
- Underwriters Nat. Assur. Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691 (a court may inquire into the jurisdictional basis of another State's judgment before giving it full faith and credit)
- Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 867 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. decision applying limits on full faith and credit to state default judgments under FSIA)
- Jerez v. Republic of Cuba, 775 F.3d 419 (D.C. Cir. decision holding FFCA does not bar inquiry into jurisdictional basis of state default judgments in FSIA context)
- Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. case discussing evidentiary approach to default judgments against state sponsors of terrorism)
- Hawley v. Murphy, 736 A.2d 268 (Me. 1999) (under Maine law, default does not bar later challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction)