Acree v. Republic of Iraq

• Decision Date: 17 July 2008
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 02-632 (RWR).
• Citation: 565 F.Supp.2d 128
• Parties: Clifford ACREE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REPUBLIC OF IRAQ, et al., Defendants, and United States of America, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

565 F.Supp.2d 128 Clifford ACREE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
REPUBLIC OF IRAQ, et al., Defendants, and
United States of America, Intervenor. Civil Action No. 02-632 (RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 17, 2008.

John Norton Moore, Oceans & International, Alexandria, VA, Stephen A. Fennell,

Page 129

Anthony A. Onorato, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, David Davis Smyth, III, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. for Plaintiffs.

Timothy B. Mills, Maggs & McDermott, LLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Joseph H. Hunt, Rupa Bhattacharyya, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs move for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), requesting that their action "be re-opened for a hearing on the causes of action pled in Plaintiffs' suit and not considered and decided by the court of appeals." (Pls.' Mot. for Relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) ("Pls.' Mot.") at 3.) Plaintiffs, 17 American soldiers joined by their close family members, originally filed suit in 2002 against the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service asserting a cause of action under Section 1605(a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and seeking relief for injuries arising from their captivity as prisoners of war in Iraq during the Gulf War. Following the defendants' failure to appear, default judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. See Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 271 F.Supp.2d 179 (D.D.C.2003). Two weeks later, the United States filed a motion to intervene solely to challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction based upon legal developments that had occurred 75 days earlier. Noting that the government offered no explanation for its substantial delay, and adversely assessing each interest the government claimed in seeking to intervene as of right, a memorandum opinion and order denied the motion. See Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 276 F.Supp.2d 95, 99-101 (D.D.C. 2003). The United States appealed, and the court of appeals took three actions. The court reversed the order denying the government's motion and allowed the government to intervene, Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41, 50-51, 60 (D.C.Cir.2004) ("Acree III")¹; held that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction, id. at 43, 48, 57-58; and vacated the judgment and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Id...