Zuza v. Office of the High Representative
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9331
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Zoran Zuza sued the Office of the High Representative (OHR) and two High Representatives (Ashdown and Inzko) seeking relief for Zuza’s 2004 removal from office in Republika Srpska. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA).
- Congress enacted a statute in 2010 extending IOIA-type immunity to the OHR; the President issued an executive order in 2011 extending IOIA immunity to OHR, its officers, and employees.
- Section 8(a) of the IOIA requires that persons be “duly notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State” (or satisfy other conditions) before qualifying for IOIA immunity.
- After Zuza sued, letters and State Department records (some dated after suit began) established that Ashdown and Inzko had been notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State.
- The district court held that IOIA immunity applied (and could attach retroactively) and denied Zuza’s reconsideration; Zuza appealed.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that once immunity under the IOIA attached (even mid-litigation), the suit must be dismissed because defendants are immune from "suit and legal process."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ashdown and Inzko were entitled to IOIA immunity despite some notifications occurring after suit began | Zuza argued §8(a) was not satisfied before suit, so immunity should not bar his case | Defendants and the U.S. argued notification/acceptance (established in record) qualified them for immunity, which applies to "suit and legal process" even if recognized later | Court held IOIA immunity attached and divested jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether IOIA immunity can apply retroactively to pending litigation | Zuza contended immunity cannot defeat an already-pending suit if conditions were met after filing | Defendants argued IOIA immunity shields from both suit and legal process whenever it validly attaches | Court held immunity from "legal process" is broad and requires dismissal even if immunity vested pendente lite |
Key Cases Cited
- Nyambal v. Int’l Monetary Fund, 772 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (standard of review for legal questions)
- Tuck v. Pan Am. Health Org., 668 F.2d 547 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (IOIA immunity shields defendants from litigation burdens)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (effect of intervening statutory changes on pending cases)
- Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. 848 (2009) (restoration of sovereign immunity can extinguish pending suits)
- Atkinson v. Inter-Am. Dev. Bank, 156 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (IOIA immunity is absolute subject to waiver/limitation)
- Mendaro v. World Bank, 717 F.2d 610 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (limits on IOIA immunity: waiver or presidential modification)
- Abdulaziz v. Metro. Dade Cty., 741 F.2d 1328 (11th Cir. 1984) (diplomatic immunity applies to suits commenced before immunity asserted)
- Dyson v. District of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (review standards for denial of Rule 59(e) motions)