Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

• Decision Date: 08 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 03–cv–1197 (RCL).,03–cv–1197 (RCL).
• Citation: 768 F.Supp.2d 16
• Parties: Amir Reza OVEISSI, Plaintiff,v.ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

768 F.Supp.2d 16

Amir Reza OVEISSI, Plaintiff,

v.ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants.

No. 03–cv–1197 (RCL).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

March 8, 2011.

Charles Cervantes, Arlington, VA, Thomas Fortune Fay, Fay Kaplan Law, PA, Washington, DC, Ezra D. Landes, Law Offices of James W. Spertus, James W. Spertus, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Amir Reza Oveissi brought this suit over seven years ago, seeking to hold defendants Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and the Iranian Ministry of Information Security (“MOIS”) liable for the assassination of his grandfather, Gholam Oveissi. Gholam Oveissi was a general and high-ranking official in Iran prior to the 1979 revolution, which saw the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini and the transformation of Iran into an Islamic state. Shortly before the revolution, General Oveissi and his family fled to the United States, where Amir Reza was born. After a brief stay in the U.S., the family settled in Paris, France, where they resided for nearly five years. Their stay in Paris was cut short, however, after Gholam Oveissi was gunned down in a busy street in February 1984. Islamic Jihad—a relatively-unknown group at the time—immediately claimed responsibility for the assassination. Following his brutal murder, the remaining members of Gholam Oveissi's family, including five year-old Amir Reza, were whisked away to Africa, and eventually made their way back to the United States, where plaintiff has since resided. Since his grandfather's death, plaintiff—and the world—has learned that Islamic Jihad was actually a cell composed of members of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, and that the group acted “under the direction of MOIS, and were materially supported by Iran.” Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F.Supp.2d 1, 14–15, No. 03 Civ. 1197, 2010 WL 4553539, at *12, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120168, at *35 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2010) (“ Oveissi III ”) (quotations omitted).

Plaintiff Amir Reza Oveissi brings this action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., seeking to hold both Iran and MOIS liable for their complicity in the murder of his grandfather. That Act contains a provision known as the “state-sponsored terrorism” exception, which, at the time plaintiff initiated his suit, was codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and “lifted the immunity of foreign states for a certain category of sovereign acts which are repugnant to the United States and the international community—terrorism.” Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F.Supp. 1, 12 (D.D.C.1998). Following seven years of litigation, this Court determined that plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to establish that “Islamic Jihad was responsible for the murder of Gholam Ali Oveissi in Paris, France, and the agents carrying out the assassination were funded and controlled by defendant Iran through defendant MOIS.” Oveissi III, 768 F.Supp.2d at 15, 2010 WL 4553539 at *12, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120168 at *12. Following the directions of the D.C. Circuit, see Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 573 F.3d 835, 844 (D.C.Cir.2009) ( “ Oveissi II ”) (“We leave it to the district court on remand to evaluate the plaintiff's claims under French law.”), this Court—applying the law of France ¹—found that the assassination of Gholam Oveissi was “undertaken within the scope of [an] agency relationship” between Islamic Jihad and defendants, and thus ordered “judgment [to be] entered against all defendants as to all issues of liability.” Oveissi III, 768 F.Supp.2d at 15, 2010 WL 4553539 at *13, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120168 at *37–38.

As a result of the original dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action, Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 498 F.Supp.2d 268 (D.D.C.2007) ( “ Oveissi I ”), the Court had not received any evidence concerning the appropriate measure of damages at the time that it rendered its opinion on liability in Oveissi III. Plaintiff, recognizing this gap in the record, requested leave to brief the Court concerning damages, Memorandum of Law on the Applicability of Relevant French Law 7–8, June 8, 2010[45], which the Court granted. Oveissi III, 768 F.Supp.2d at 15–16, 2010 WL 4553539 at *13–14, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120168 at *37–38. Plaintiff subsequently submitted a brief to the Court outlining his estimation of the appropriate measure of damages, and appending his own sworn declaration as well as those of his brother Amir Ali Oveissi and his father Mohammad Reza Oveissi. Damage Estimate and Brief in Support of Damage Award, Dec. 10, 2010[49] (“Damage Estimate”). The Court then held an evidentiary hearing concerning damages on December 20, 2010, at which all three declarants from plaintiff's Damage Estimate appeared and provided sworn affirmations of the truth of their declarations. A few weeks after this hearing, the Court issued an Order in which it observed that “in any FSIA litigation, recoverable economic losses are limited to those that ‘ result from decedent's premature death,’ ” Order 3, Jan. 7, 2011 [50–1] (emphasis in original; quoting Flatow, 999 F.Supp. at 27), and invited plaintiff to submit additional evidence to “establish, to the satisfaction of the Court, that [Amir Reza] would have experienced some economic gain as a result of his grandfather's holdings (and quantify that gain), and ... demonstrate that the assassination of Gholam Oveissi was the cause of his alleged economic losses.” Id. In response, plaintiff submitted a supplemental brief and new evidence to address the concerns raised by the Order. Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Damage Estimate, Feb. 4, 2011[53] (“Supp. Br.”). On the basis of all the evidence submitted by plaintiff here, as well as judicial notice of certain evidence presented in Oveissi I,² the Court makes the following factual findings, and awards damages as appropriate.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The evidence submitted by plaintiff tends to fall into one of three categories: evidence related to the nature of his relationship with, and reaction to the death of, his grandfather Gholam Oveissi; evidence concerning the extent of General Oveissi's former properties and businesses in Iran; and evidence concerning how Amir Reza would have benefited from his grandfather's holdings had he not been assassinated. The Court discusses each of these subjects in turn.

A. Evidence Concerning Plaintiff's Relationship with his Grandfather

In Oveissi I, plaintiff submitted substantial evidence concerning his relationship with his grandfather, the deceased Gholam Oveissi. Plaintiff now supplements that information by submitting sworn declarations from both himself and his brother, Amir Ali Oveissi. These combined proofs establish the following facts:

General Gholam Oveissi was a prominent figure in pre-revolution Iran. He was “a four-star general in Iran's armed forces,” Oveissi I, 498 F.Supp.2d at 274–75, and was closely linked with the ruling Shah of Iran prior to the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Id. Contemporary accounts of General Oveissi describe him as “one of the most powerful Iranian generals,” and state that he was “the commander of the imperial Iranian army.” Dec. 10, 2010 Declaration of Amir Reza Oveissi ³ (“Amir Reza 1st Decl.”) at ¶¶ 2–3 & Exs. A–B. Plaintiff also submits numerous photographs and other documentary evidence to the Court that corroborate General Oveissi's position as one of power and prestige during the Shah's rule of Iran. See id. at Exs. K–P.

Following his flight from Iran and the birth of his grandchildren—including plaintiff—Gholam Oveissi became very close to his family. Indeed, plaintiff Amir Reza Oveissi remembers his grandfather being present for virtually all of his life prior to the assassination. Id. at ¶ 5. The family moved to the United States following the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, and shortly thereafter they all moved to Paris. Oveissi I, 498 F.Supp.2d at 274. During this period, the entire family—including Gholam Oveissi—was always together, id., and plaintiff submits several family photos of the whole family together at various times and in various places, all of which include both him and his grandfather. Amir Reza 1st Decl. Exs. C–I. Once the entire family arrived in Paris, they lived in the same apartment together. Oveissi I, 498 F.Supp.2d at 274. They were a “very close and loving family.” Amir Reza 1st Decl. ¶ 6.

In addition to the physical proximity between plaintiff and his grandfather, the two also shared a special bond. They would see each other almost every day, and his grandfather always came with his father to pick him up from daycare. Id. at ¶ 14. He and his grandfather would take special trips together, just the two of them, going to the park for a picnic or to one of Paris' great museums. Id. Amir Reza's grandfather also acted as his Farsi instructor. Id. This relationship between grandson and grandfather was a special one, as Gholam Oveissi filled the role of father-figure and mentor who “was always very patient” with the young Amir Reza Oveissi. Id. at ¶ 15. Indeed, plaintiff's brother explains that his grandfather was “particularly fond” of Amir Reza. Dec. 10, 2010 Declaration of Amir Ali Oveissi ⁴ (“Amir Ali Decl.”) ¶ 2. As a result of this special relationship, during this period plaintiff “did not really distinguish between” his father and his grandfather. Amir Reza 1st Decl. ¶ 16.

Following Gholam Oveissi's brutal murder, plaintiff's shock at the loss of such a close and important figure in his life was amplified by the fact that—from his perspective—Gholam Oveissi's death was entirely unexpected. Though Gholam himself remained active in the movement to retake Iran and re-install the Shah as the secular leader of that country, Oveissi I, 498 F.Supp.2d at 274, plaintiff—at the time a young child less than six years old—was unaware that...