Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Decision Date | 20 April 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 10–cv–628 (RCL).,10–cv–628 (RCL). |
Citation | 856 F.Supp.2d 109 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Parties | Evan FAIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joseph William Fay, Thomas Fortune Fay, Fay Kaplan Law, P.A., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
I. INTRODUCTION
This action arises out of the devastating 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. The attack decimated the facility, killed 241 U.S. servicemen and left countless others wounded, and caused physical and emotional injuries to plaintiff Evan Fain III. Mr. Fain's wife and children are also plaintiffs in this suit against defendants Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”). This action is brought pursuant to the state-sponsored terrorism exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., which was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (“NDAA”). Pub.L. No. 110–181, § 1083, 122 Stat. 3, 338–44 (2008). That provision, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, provides “a federal right of action against foreign states.” Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187, 1190 (D.C.Cir.2008). Plaintiffs contend that, by both creating and supporting the terrorist organization Hezbollah and directing that organization to take ‘spectacular action against the United States Marines' stationed in Lebanon, defendants are legally responsible for the severe physical and emotional toll that the barracks bombing wreaked upon them. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that plaintiffs have provided sufficient proof to support their causes of action, and determines that defendants are liable under FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism exception.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORYA. Prior Beirut Bombing Litigation
There is a lengthy history of litigation before this Court concerning the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.1 In the seminal case, Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, dozens of plaintiffs consisting of family members of the 241 deceased servicemen, as well as several injured survivors of the attack, sued defendants Iran and MOIS, seeking to hold them liable for the horrific act under the former state-sponsored terrorism exception, which at that time was codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). 264 F.Supp.2d 46, 48 (D.D.C.2003) (Lamberth, J.). Over two days in March 2003, the Court conducted a bench trial during which it heard testimony from lay and expert witnesses and received documentary evidence concerning the horrific attack, the grave injuries many suffered, defendants' involvement in the bombing, and their support for international terrorism more broadly. See generally id. at 48–59 ( ). Based on that evidence, the Court found Id. at 58. The Court then determined, as a legal matter, that “MOIS actively participated in the attack” and was “acting as an agent of ... Iran” when doing so, and thus defendants Iran and MOIS were “jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs” for damages. Id. at 61. The Court left the determination of damages in Peterson to another day following further findings of fact by special masters appointed to assist the Court. Id. at 65. Subsequent to the opinion in Peterson, several other cases related to the 1983 attack, including this one, remained pending before this Court.
B. This Action
Plaintiffs here are serviceman Fain, his wife Maria, and their three children. In the Complaint, plaintiffs allege the same essential facts concerning the 1983 barracks bombing that were established by sufficient evidence in Peterson, Compl. ¶¶ 6–10. Plaintiffs set forth claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages against the defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 11–19.
Plaintiffs served copies of the relevant papers, along with translations, by diplomatic channels through the U.S. Department of State, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4). According to the diplomatic note, service was effected August 3, 2011. Return of Service/ Affidavit, October 19, 2011 [ECF No. 13]. Under the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, defendants had 60 days from that date—until October 2, 2011—to respond. 28 U.S.C. § 1608(d). After none of the defendants appeared or responded, the Clerk of the Court entered default on plaintiffs' behalf. Clerk's Entry of Default, Oct. 28, 2011 [ECF No. 27]. Plaintiffs then moved for this Court to take judicial notice of the proceedings in Peterson and for default judgment in accordance with § 1608(e). Motion for Default Judgment, Oct. 28, 2011 [ECF No. 26]. Based on that motion, the record, and facts available for judicial notice, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Clerk of the Court entered defendants' default on October 28, 2011. However, prior to entry of final default judgment, the FSIA requires that courts evaluate the evidence before them to ensure that plaintiffs have established their right to relief “by evidence that is satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). This requirement “imposes a duty on FSIA courts to not simply accept a complaint's unsupported allegations as true, and obligates courts to inquire further before entering judgment against parties in default.” Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F.Supp.2d 163, 171 (D.D.C.2010) (internal quotations omitted).
In considering whether to enter default judgment, courts in FSIA cases look to various sources of evidence to satisfy their statutory obligation. Courts may, for example, rely upon plaintiffs' “ ‘uncontroverted factual allegations, which are supported by ... documentary and affidavit evidence.’ ” Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.Supp.2d 52, 59 (D.D.C.2010) ( ). In addition to more traditional forms of evidence—testimony and documentation—plaintiffs in FSIA cases may also submit evidence in the form of affidavits. Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.Supp.2d 40, 53 (D.D.C.2006) (citing Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 424 F.Supp.2d 74, 82 (D.D.C.2006)). Finally, a FSIA court may “ ‘take judicial notice of related proceedings and records in cases before the same court.’ ” Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 59 (quoting Brewer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 664 F.Supp.2d 43, 50–51 (D.D.C.2009)). Here, plaintiffs rely on judicial notice, affidavits, and depositions in support of their motion for default judgment.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, courts are permitted to take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” where those facts are either “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction” or are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). This rule permits courts to take judicial notice of court records in related proceedings. 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 151 (2010); see also Booth v. Fletcher, 101 F.2d 676, 679 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1938) (); 2 McCormick on Evid. § 332 (6th ed. 2009) (courts to take judicial notice of current proceedings “is equally applicable to matters of record in the proceedings in other cases in the same court”) that the principle permitting . Because of the multiplicity of FSIA-related litigation, courts in this District have frequently taken judicial notice of earlier, related proceedings. See, e.g., Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F.Supp.2d 51, 58 (D.D.C.2010);Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 59–60;Brewer, 664 F.Supp.2d at 50–51 (D.D.C.2009).
A difficult issue arises concerning judicial notice of related proceedings with regard to courts' prior factual findings. While such findings in a prior proceeding are “capable of accurate and ready determination”from judicial records, Fed.R.Evid. 201(b), it cannot be said that these same findings are “not subject to reasonable dispute.” Id. Specifically, such findings represent merely a court's probabilistic determination as to what happened, rather than a first-hand account of the actual events. As such, they constitute hearsay, and thus are considered inadmissible. Athridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 474 F.Supp.2d 102, 110 (D.D.C.2007) (citing United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1554 (11th Cir.1994)).
This Court grappled with these difficulties in Rimkus, where—“mindful that the statutory obligation found in § 1608(e) was not designed to impose the onerous burden of re-litigating key facts in related cases arising out of the same terrorist attack,” 750 F.Supp.2d at 163 (citing Brewer, 664 F.Supp.2d at 54)—determined that the proper approach is one “that permits courts in subsequent related cases to rely upon the evidence presented in earlier litigation ... without necessitating the formality of having that evidence reproduced.” Id. (citing Murphy, 740 F.Supp.2d at 58). Thus, based on judicial notice of the evidence presented in the earlier cases—here, Peterson—courts may reach their own independent findings of fact.
This action arises out of the devastating 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon—an event that has been at the center of numerous FSIA suits. In support of their claims, plaintiffs ask this Court to take judicial notice of its previous findings in the Peterson case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nnaka v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria
...Rule of Evidence 201(b), a court may generally take judicial notice of court records in related proceedings. Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 856 F.Supp.2d 109, 115 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Booth v. Fletcher , 101 F.2d 676, 679 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1938) ); see also Fletcher v. Evening Star Newspa......
-
Worley v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civil Action No. 12–2069 RCL
...related cases arising under the state sponsored terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 856 F.Supp.2d 109, 115 (D.D.C.2012) (citing cases). The Court may not, however, simply adopt previous factual findings without scrutiny. This is be......
-
Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran
...Air Force Intelligence Directorate are foreign states for purposes of these proceedings. See Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 856 F.Supp.2d 109, 119, 2012 WL 1377595, at *7 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2012) (finding similar entities to qualify as a foreign state). Third, plaintiffs suffered “personal......
-
Dibenedetto v. Iranian Ministry Info
...defendants' involvement in the bombing, and their support for international terrorism more broadly." Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 856 F. Supp. 2d 109, 114 (D.D.C. 2012). Following the conclusion of that bench trial, the Peterson Court determined,that it is beyond question that Hezbolla......
-
GROUNDING THE HUMA: THE LEGALITY OF SPACE DENIAL AND (POTENTIAL) AMERICAN INTERFERENCE IN THE IRANIAN SPACE PROGRAM.
...lethality of Iran's terrorism continues to outpace that of all other terrorist actors." Id. [65] See Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 856 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. [66] See Iranian activities in support of the Palestinian intifada, Israel Ministry of Foreign Aff. (Jan. 30, 2003), https://mfa......