Azadeh v. Gov't of the Islamic Republic of Iran
| Decision Date | 05 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-1467 (KBJ) |
| Parties | ASFANEH AZADEH, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
On July 18, 2016, Plaintiff Asfaneh Azadeh commenced this tort action against Defendants the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (collectively "Defendants") for the "uncontested and inhumane atrocities she suffered during the three months she spent wrongfully imprisoned in an Iranian jail." Azadeh v. Gov't of Islamic Republic of Iran, 16-cv-1467, 2018 WL 3381306, at *1 (D.D.C. July 11, 2018). Currently pending before this Court is Azadeh's renewed motion for a default judgment against Defendants and also Magistrate Judge Michael Harvey's Report and Recommendation regarding that motion. (See Pl.'s Renewed Mot. for Default J., ECF Nos. 13 & 40; Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), ECF No. 27.) Because Azadeh has successfully effected service upon Defendants in accordance with section 1608(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, this Court now has the personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction necessary to consider both the merits of Azadeh's claims and the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. See Azadeh, 2018 WL 3381306, at *1.
In his comprehensive Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Harvey evaluated the undisputed and harrowing facts that Azadeh established, and he concluded that Defendants are liable for assaulting, battering, falsely imprisoning, and intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Azadeh. (See R & R at 33-38.) Magistrate Judge Harvey also addressed the damages that should be awarded to Azadeh, concluding that Plaintiff is entitled to the following: $13,028,889 for her pain and suffering; $5,176,733 for her economic damages; and $18,205,622 for her punitive damages; for a total damages award of $36,411,244. (Id. at 52; see also id. at 38-52.) The Report and Recommendation also advises the parties that, "failure to file timely objections to the findings and recommendations set forth in this report may waive [the parties'] right of appeal from an order of the District Court that adopts such findings and recommendations." (Id. at 52-53); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); see also Gov't of Rwanda v. Johnson, 409 F.3d 368, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ().
Having considered these conclusions and the analysis supporting them, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Harvey's findings and ADOPTS his analysis and conclusions regarding the Defendants' liability and the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to Azadeh. Consequently, consistent with the attached Report and Recommendation and as set forth in the accompanying Order, Azadeh's renewed motion for a default judgment will be GRANTED, and damages will be awarded in the amount of $36,411,244.
DATE: September 5, 2018
/s/_________
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge
APPENDIX A
AFSANEH AZADEH Plaintiff,
v.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 16-cv-1467(KBJ/GMH)
This matter was referred to the undersigned for full case management. Plaintiff Afsaneh Azadeh brought this action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's ("FSIA") state sponsor of terrorism exception. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. She seeks to hold the Government of the Islamic State of Iran and the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution to account for the abuse and torment—and as the undersigned finds below, torture—that she suffered during nearly four months of detention at Iran's notorious Evin Prison in 2012.
While at Evin Prison, Plaintiff was locked in a small, windowless cell, and subjected to daily interrogations seeking to elicit a false confession that she was an agent for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") engaging in activities against Iran. Prison officials whipped her, repeatedly hit her head against a wall, and pushed her down stairs. They subjected her to two mock executions. They drugged her and threatened to transfer to other prisons where she would be raped, tortured and never seen again. They detained her fiancé and told her that if she did not confess that he would be subjected to the same treatment she was experiencing. They also falselytold her that her mother had died after hearing news that Plaintiff had been executed. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff experienced substantial pain and suffering while she was imprisoned. She experience panic attacks, [Redacted] , engaged in a week-long hunger strike, [Redacted] . Since her release, she continues to suffer the effects of her incarceration, including permanent injuries to her shoulder and head, [Redacted] . In this action, she seeks an award of compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants for the physical and emotional injuries she has suffered.
As neither Defendant filed a response to the complaint within 60 days of service as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1609(d), Plaintiff has moved for entry of a default judgment. [Dkt. 10]. After a thorough review of the record evidence, and consideration of this Court's case law adjudicating analogous actions against foreign sovereigns, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff be awarded $18,205,622 in compensatory damages, and an equal amount of punitive damages, for a total of $36,411,244.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grant district courts discretion to enter a default judgment upon a party's motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). A default judgment is normally available, as here, when "the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party." Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). The party seeking the judgment must demonstrate that the court has both subject matter jurisdiction over the action and personal jurisdiction over the absent defendant. See Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Republic, 167 F. Supp. 3d 22, 33 (D.D.C. 2016); Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F. 3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir.2005). Additionally, before a default judgment can be entered against a foreign sovereign, the FSIA requires a plaintiff to "establish[] his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court." Thuneibat, 167 F. Supp. 3d at 33 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e)). A court must thoroughly review a plaintiff's allegations and evidence against an absent foreign sovereign. See Han Kim v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Bluth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 203 F. Supp. 3d 1, 16-17 (D.D.C. 2016). While a court "may not unquestioningly accept a complaint's unsupported allegations as true," Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, F. Supp. 2d 204, 211 (D.D.C. 2012), "[u]ncontroverted factual allegations that are supported by admissible evidence are taken as true." Thuneibat, 167 F. Supp. 3d at 33; Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 78 F. Supp. 3d 379, 386 (D.D.C. 2015). An evidentiary hearing is not required; rather, a "plaintiff may establish proof by affidavit." Reed, 845 F. Supp. 2d at 212; see also Mwani, 417 F.3d at 7 ( . . . . The court may also "take judicial notice of related proceedings and records in cases before the same court." Ben-Rafael v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 540 F. Supp. 2d 39, 43 (D.D.C. 2008).
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in July 2016 under the FSIA's state sponsor of terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. Plaintiff initially effected serviced on Defendants only through diplomatic channels pursuant to section 1608(a)(4),and not by first attempting service by mail pursuant to section 1608(a)(3). [Dkt. 5-1]. Specifically, Plaintiff provided translated copies of the summons, complaint and notice of suit, to the Clerk of Court for delivery by the U.S. Department of State to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [Dkt. 5]. The State Department confirmed the documents were delivered to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, via diplomatic channels, on January 17, 2017 under diplomatic note.1 [Dkt. 8]. Neither Defendant filed a response within 60 days of service as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1609(d). On March 23, 2017, at Plaintiff's request, the Clerk of Court declared Defendants in default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). [Dkt. 10; Dkt. 11].
On April 23, 2018, citing to recent decisions from this Court that have held that service on Iran many not be perfected solely via diplomatic channels pursuant to section 1608(a)(4) and have required service to be attempted via mail pursuant to section 1608(a)(3), the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why her motion for default judgment should not be denied for failure of service on Defendants. [Dkt. 17]. In response, Plaintiff attempted service by mail on Defendants pursuant to section 1608(a)(3). [Dkt. 21: Dkt. 22]. The Clerk of the Court mailed translated copies of the summons, complaint, and notice of suit to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on May 8, 2018. [Dkt. 23]. The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused service on May 20, 2018. [Dkt. 25].
Accordingly, the undersigned now turns to Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). [Dkt. 13]. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial