999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998)
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED that judgment be and it is entered in favor of Plaintiff Stephen M. Flatow, as Administrator of the Estate of Alisa Michelle Flatow, against Defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani, jointly and severally, for funeral expenses and the loss of accretions to the Estate of Alisa Michelle Flatow in the amount of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS ($1,513,220.00), said amount to be apportioned in accordance with the intestate laws of the State of New Jersey; it is further
ORDERED that judgment be and it is entered in favor of Plaintiff Stephen M. Flatow, as Administrator of the Estate of Alisa Michelle Flatow, against Defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani, jointly and severally, for decedent's pain and suffering in the amount of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00); it is further
ORDERED that judgment be and it is entered upon application of Plaintiff Stephen M. Flatow, on behalf of decedent's parents and siblings, against Defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani, jointly and severally, for solatium in the total amount of TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS, allocated as follows: to decedent's father, Stephen M. Flatow, FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00); to decedent's mother, Rosalyn Flatow, FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00); to decedent's sister, Gail Flatow, TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,500,000.00); to decedent's sister, Francine Flatow, TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,500,000.00); to decedent's sister, Ilana Flatow, TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,500,000.00); and to decedent's brother, TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,500,000.00); it is further
ORDERED that judgment be and it is entered in favor of Plaintiff Stephen M. Flatow, as Administrator of the Estate of Alisa Michelle Flatow, and against Defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($225,000,000.00); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court cause a copy of this Order and the accompanying Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be translated into Farsi and transmitted to the Department of State for diplomatic service upon Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4), with the costs of translation to be paid by the Plaintiff.
This is an action for wrongful death resulting from an act of state-sponsored terrorism. Defendants have not entered an appearance in this matter. This Court entered Defendants' default on September 4, 1997, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Notwithstanding indicia of Defendants' willful default,1 however, this Court is compelled to make further inquiry prior to entering a judgment by default against Defendants. As with actions against the federal government, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") requires that a default judgment against a foreign state be entered only after plaintiff "establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence that is satisfactory to the Court." 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e); see Compania Interamericana Export-Import, S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir.1996).
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to two recently enacted amendments to the FSIA, which grant jurisdiction over foreign states and their officials, agents and employees, and create federal causes of action related to personal injury or death resulting from state-sponsored terrorist attacks. Given these novel enactments, and this Court's special role in the development of foreign sovereign immunity jurisprudence, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f)(4), this Court has engaged in a systematic review of dispositive legal issues prior to making its determination that Plaintiff has established his claim and right to relief to the satisfaction of this Court.2
This matter came before the Court for an evidentiary hearing on March 2-3, 1998. The Plaintiff proceeded in the manner of a nonjury trial before the Court and the following findings of fact are based upon the sworn testimony and documents entered into evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. Plaintiff has "establishe[d] his claim or right to relief by evidence that is satisfactory to the Court" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). This Court finds the following facts to be established by clear and convincing evidence, which would have been sufficient to establish a prima facie case in a contested proceeding:
Plaintiff Stephen M. Flatow, a domiciliary of the State of New Jersey, is the father of Alisa Michelle Flatow, decedent, and is also the Administrator of the Estate of Alisa Michelle Flatow. He brings this action in his own right, as Administrator of the Estate of Alisa Michelle Flatow, and on behalf of decedent's heirs-at-law, including Rosalyn Flatow, decedent's mother, and decedent's siblings, Gail, age 21, Francine, age 18, Ilana, age 16, and Etan, age 14, all decedent's siblings. Affidavit (Exhibit 2) and testimony of Stephen M. Flatow.
Alisa Michelle Flatow was born on October 5, 1974 in the United States. She maintained her United States citizenship throughout her life, and was a United States citizen at the time of her death. Affidavit (Exhibit 2) and testimony of Stephen M. Flatow; Report of the Death Of An American Citizen Abroad (Exhibit 9).
At the time of her death, Alisa Michelle Flatow was a twenty-year-old Brandeis University student. For the 1995 spring semester, her junior year at Brandeis University, Alisa Michelle Flatow arranged for and participated in an independent foreign study program in Israel. Affidavit (Exhibit 2) and testimony of Stephen M. Flatow; testimony of Dr. Jonathan Sarna; testimony of Alan Mitrani; testimony of Lauren Sloane; testimony of Gail Flatow; testimony of Francine Flatow; decedent's academic records from Brandeis University.
While in Israel, she communicated with her father, Plaintiff Stephen M. Flatow, to ask whether she could travel to a community on the Mediterranean Sea with friends. He reviewed their itinerary with her, and as he believed that the Israeli government would not provide civilian passenger bus service unless it were safe to do so and he gave her permission to travel in Gaza. Affidavit (Exhibit 2) and testimony of Stephen M. Flatow.
On April 9, 1995, decedent Alisa Michelle Flatow was a passenger on the number 36 Egged bus, which was traveling from Ashkelon, Israel to a Mediterranean resort in the Gush Katif community. Testimony of Kesari Rusa.
At or about 12:05 p.m. local time, near Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip, a suicide bomber drove a van loaded with explosives into the number 36 Egged bus, causing an explosion that destroyed the bus. Testimony of Kesari Rusa; testimony of Orit Taft; testimony of Ezra Mordecai testimony of and videotape by David Shaenbaum; U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM 1995 (April 1996).
As a result of the explosion, a piece of shrapnel pierced Alisa Michelle Flatow's skull casing and lodged in her brain, causing a severe head injury. Testimony of Dr. Allen Fisher; decedent's medical records from the Soroka Medical Center, with translation from Hebrew (Exhibit 3).
Immediately after the explosion, Alisa Michelle Flatow slumped over onto her traveling companion, Kesari Rusa. Her eyes were open and her hands clutched. She received emergency medical treatment on the scene. Because her injuries were so severe, she was among the first of the injured which the Israeli Defense Forces medivac'ed by helicopter to the Soroka Medical Center in B'er Sheva for immediate medical attention. Testimony of Kesari Rusa; testimony of and videotape by David Shaenbaum; testimony of Orit Taft.
Upon her arrival at the Soroka Medical Center approximately one hour after the bombing, Alisa Michelle Flatow's pulse and respiration were good without medical assistance. Her pupils reacted to light and she responded to deep pain stimuli. She was assessed as a 5 of a possible 15 on the Glasgow coma scale. She had sustained a depressed skull fracture and intracerebral lacerations. Testimony of Dr. Allen Fisher; decedent's medical records from the Soroka Medical Center, with translation from Hebrew (Exhibit 3).
From approximately 3 to 5 pm local time, Alisa Michelle Flatow was in emergency surgery; the entrance wound was debrided and a partial craniotomy was performed in order to alleviate pressure from the intracerebral hemorrhaging and concomitant swelling of brain tissue within the skull. Testimony of Dr. Allen Fisher; decedent's medical records from the Soroka Medical Center, with translation from Hebrew (Exhibit 3).
To a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Alisa Michelle Flatow suffered extreme bodily pain and suffering for at least three to five hours as a result of the injuries she sustained in the bombing. Testimony of Dr. Gregory Threatte.
Plaintiff Stephen M. Flatow first heard of the attack on the radio on April 9, 1995 at approximately 7:45 am EST; he immediately began attempts to contact his daughter. That decedent had been on the number 36 Egged bus was confirmed when one of her traveling companions telephoned her family in the United States. Plaintiff made extraordinary efforts to locate his daughter; after several hours, the Medical Center confirmed that she was being treated there and that she was in grave condition. Plaintiff immediately flew to Israel to be with his daughter. Affidavit (Exhibit 2) and testimony of Stephen M. Flatow; testimony of Rosalyn Flatow; testimony of Alan Mitrani.
Shortly after his arrival at the Soroka Medical Center the morning of April 10, 1995, the hospital director and Dr. Allen Fisher, the attending physician, informed Stephen M. Flatow that Alisa Michelle Flatow showed no brain activity, that all physical functions relied upon artificial life support, and that there was no hope for her recovery. Affidavit (Exhibit 2) and testimony of Stephen M. Flatow; testimony of Dr. Allan Fisher; decedent's medical records from the Soroka Medical Center, with translation from Hebrew (exhibit 3).
The Flatow family is Jewish and observes Orthodox Jewish practice. Orthodox doctrine reveres the sanctity of life and of the body; the traditional view is that all means should be exerted to prolong life, and that the body must be buried intact. However, Orthodox doctrine also considers the saving of one life to be the saving of an entire universe. Alisa Michelle Flatow's condition presented an opportunity to save lives through organ donation, which is extremely rare in Israel precisely because it is incompatible with the sanctity of life and of the body. After consulting with several Rabbis, Stephen M. Flatow requested that no further extraordinary efforts be exerted on behalf of his daughter, that life support be terminated, and that his daughter's organs be harvested for transplant. Alisa Michelle Flatow died at approximately 10:00 a.m. local time on April 10, 1995. Her organs saved three lives and significantly improved the quality of life for several other persons. Affidavit (Exhibit 2) and testimony of Stephen M. Flatow, testimony of Dr. Allan Fisher decedent's medical records from the Soroka Medical Center, with translation from Hebrew (Exhibit 3); testimony of Ari Mendelson (organ recipient).
Alisa Michelle Flatow had been accompanied on the bus by two companions who were also United States nationals and were injured as a result of the explosion. United States nationals often rode this bus line. The attack on the bus caused seven other deaths and many injuries, all involving non-United States nationals. Testimony of Kesari Rusa; testimony of Orit Taft; U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM 1995 (April 1996).
The Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for and in fact perpetrated the terrorist act which caused the death of Alisa Michelle Flatow. Palestine Islamic Jihad is series of loosely affiliated factions rather than a cohesive group. The Shaqaqi faction is a terrorist cell with a small core membership. Its sole purpose is to conduct terrorist activities in the Gaza region, and its sole source of funding is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Testimony of Dr. Reuven Paz; testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson; testimony of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Harry Brandon; U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM 1995 (April 1996).
The Israeli government informed Stephen M. Flatow that the Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad had claimed responsibility for the bombing, and that their investigation had confirmed that claim. Affidavit of Stephen M. Flatow (Exhibit 2).
In July 1996, Plaintiff Stephen M. Flatow and his counsel met with Ambassador Philip Wilcox, who then served as the Department of State's Coordinator for Counterterrorism. During that meeting, he informed Mr. Flatow that the Department of State was satisfied that the group which had claimed responsibility for the bombing, the Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad, had in fact perpetrated the bombing, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran provided approximately two million dollars to Palestine Islamic Jihad annually in support of its terrorist activities. Affidavit of Stephen M. Flatow (Exhibit 2).
Defendant the Islamic Republic of Iran is a foreign state and has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism pursuant to section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C.App. § 2405(j)) continuously since January 19, 1984. Defendant provides material support and resources to Palestine Islamic Jihad by supplying funds and training for the Shaqaqi faction's terrorist activities in the Gaza Strip region. Testimony of Dr. Reuven Paz, testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson, testimony of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Harry Brandon.
Defendant the Islamic Republic of Iran sponsors the Shaqaqi faction's terrorist activities within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C. § 1605 note by providing it with all of its funding. Testimony of Dr. Reuven Paz; testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson; testimony of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Harry Brandon.
Defendant the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security is the Iranian intelligence service, functioning both within and beyond Iranian territory. Acting as an agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security performed acts within the scope of its agency, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note, which caused the death of Alisa Michelle Flatow. Specifically, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security acted as a conduit for the Islamic Republic of Iran's provision of funds and training to the Shaqaqi faction for its terrorist activities in the Gaza Strip region. Testimony of Dr. Reuven Paz; testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson; testimony of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Harry Brandon.
Defendant Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Acting as an official of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Defendant Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei performed acts within the scope of his office, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note, which caused the death of Alisa Michelle Flatow. Specifically, Defendant Khamenei approved the provision of material support and resources to the Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad. Testimony of Dr. Reuven Paz; testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson; testimony of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Harry Brandon.
Defendant Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani is the former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Acting as an official of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Defendant Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani performed acts within the scope of his office, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note, which caused the death of Alisa Michelle Flatow. Specifically, Defendant approved the provision of material support and resources to the Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad. Testimony of Dr. Reuven Paz; testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson; testimony of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Harry Brandon.
Defendant Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani is the former head of the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security. Acting as an official of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Defendant Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani performed acts within the scope of his office, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note, which caused the death of Alisa Michelle Flatow. Specifically, Defendant Fallahian approved the provision of material support and resources by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Shaqaqi faction. Testimony of Dr. Reuven Paz; testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson; testimony of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Harry Brandon.
Defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, while acting as an agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Iranian officials Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and former Minister Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani, each acting in his official capacity, conspired to provide material support and resources to the Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note, which caused the death of Alisa Michelle Flatow. Testimony of Dr. Reuven Paz; testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson; testimony of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Harry Brandon.
Alisa Michelle Flatow's death was caused by a willful and deliberate act of extrajudicial killing because the explosion was caused by a bomb that was deliberately driven into the bus by a member of the Shaqaqi faction of the Palestine Islamic Jihad acting under the direction of Defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani.
As a result of Alisa Michelle Flatow's death, her Estate suffered a loss of accretions which could have been expected to occur during the course of her anticipated life expectancy in the amount of $1,508,750.00. Report (Exhibit 6) and testimony of Dr. Jerome S. Paige.
As a result of Alisa Michelle Flatow's death, her heirs-at-law have suffered an economic loss for the expenses associated with her funeral and final services in the amount of $4,470.00. Funeral Home Invoice (Exhibit 4).
As the result of Alisa Michelle Flatow's death, her parents and her surviving sisters and brother have suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and the loss of her society. Testimony of Stephen M. Flatow; testimony of Rosalyn Flatow; testimony of Gail Flatow; testimony of Francine Flatow, testimony of Ilana Flatow, testimony of Etan Flatow, testimony of Alan Mitrani, testimony of Lauren Sloane, testimony of Kesari Rusa.
As this action is brought against a foreign state, its intelligence service acting as its agent, and three of its officials, acting in their official capacity,3 the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 et seq. ["FSIA"], as amended, controls this action. The FSIA must be applied in every action involving a foreign state defendant. Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 489, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983); 28 U.S.C. § 1330. The sole bases for subject matter jurisdiction in an action against a foreign state defendant are the FSIA's enumerated exceptions to immunity. Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 434, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989). This Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter unless it falls within one of the FSIA's enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity. See Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355, 113 S.Ct. 1471, 123 L.Ed.2d 47 (1993).
Until the beginning of this century, the United States afforded foreign states absolute immunity from suit in courts of the United States as a matter of common law. See, e.g., The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812); Berizzi Bros. Co. v. S.S. Pesaro, 271 U.S. 562, 46 S.Ct. 611, 70 L.Ed. 1088 (1926). With the rise of Communism and the consequent outgrowth of state trading and shipping companies, however, the United States began to recognize the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity, which permitted suits arising from a foreign state's commercial activities. See S. SUCHARITKUL, STATE IMMUNITIES AND TRADING ACTIVITIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1959); Friedmann, Changing Social Arrangements in State-Trading States and their Effect on International Law, 24 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 350 (1959).
The issuance of the Tate Letter, on May 19, 1952, officially marked this transition for United States practice. See Letter from Jack B. Tate, Acting Legal Advisor, to Acting Attorney General (May 19, 1952), reprinted at 26 DEP'T OF STATE BULL. 984-985 and reprinted at Appendix 2 to Alfred Dunhill of London v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 711, 96 S.Ct. 1854, 48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976) [hereinafter "Tate Letter"]. The Tate Letter announced that the United States would henceforth follow the restrictive theory in making foreign sovereign immunity determinations. In 1976, in order to promote uniform and apolitical determinations, Congress transferred immunity determinations from the Department of State to the judiciary and otherwise essentially codified the Tate Letter's restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity in the FSIA. See H.R. REP. NO. 1487, 94th CONG., 2D SESS. at 12, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6610-11; GARY B. BORN AND DAVID WESTIN, INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN UNITED STATES COURTS at 452-453 (2d ed.1992); see also M. Sandler, D. Vagts & B. Ristau, eds., Sovereign Immunity Decisions of the Department of State, DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1977 at 1017.
Courts steadfastly refused to extend the FSIA as originally enacted beyond commercial activities, jure gestionis, to reach public acts, jure imperii, outside the United States. This judicial restraint permitted foreign states to use the FSIA as a shield against civil liability for violations of the law of nations committed against United States nationals overseas. See, e.g., Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 113 S.Ct. 1471, 123 L.Ed.2d 47; Smith v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 101 F.3d 239 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied ___ U.S. ____, 117 S.Ct. 1569, 137 L.Ed.2d 714, reh'g denied ___ U.S. ____, 117 S.Ct. 2427, 138 L.Ed.2d 189 (1997) [hereinafter "Pan Am 103"]; Cicippio v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 30 F.3d 164 (D.C.Cir.1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1078, 115 S.Ct. 726, 130 L.Ed.2d 631 (1995); Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C.Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1121, 115 S.Ct. 923, 130 L.Ed.2d 803 (1995).
In 1996 Congress took action which effectuated an even greater change than that represented by the Tate Letter. In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Congress 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. Pub.L. 104-132, Title II, § 221(a), (April 24, 1996), 110 Stat. 1241 codified at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 (West 1997 Supp.) [hereinafter "state sponsored terrorism exception"]. That Act created an exception to the immunity of those foreign states officially designated by the Department of State as terrorist states4 if the foreign state commits a terrorist act, or provides material support and resources to an individual or entity which commits such an act, which results in the death or personal injury of a United States citizen. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)5; see also H.R.REP. NO. 383, 104TH CONG., 1ST SESS.1995 at 137-38, available at 1995 WL 731698.
Although the Antiterrorism Act created a forum competent to adjudicate claims arising from offenses of this nature, serious issues remained, in particular, the causes of action available to plaintiffs. Congressman Jim Saxton sponsored an amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) with the intent to clarify this and other issues. In Congressman Saxton's experience as Chairman of the House Task Force on Counterterrorism and Unconventional Warfare and member of the House National Security Committee, in order for the exception for immunity to have the desired deterrent effect, the potential civil liability for foreign states which commit and sponsor acts of terrorism would have to be substantial. See Congressman Jim Saxton, News Release: Saxton to the Flatow Family: "Be Strong, America Is Behind You" (February 26, 1997); see also NORMAN J. SINGER, 2 SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION at § 48.16 (5th ed.1992, 1997 Supp.) citing Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 106 S.Ct. 1834, 90 L.Ed.2d 248 (1986). Therefore, the amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) expressly provided, inter alia, that punitive damages were available in actions brought under the state sponsored terrorism exception to immunity. See H.R. CONF. REP. 863, 104TH CONG, 2ND SESS. 1996 reprinted at 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 924; Senator Frank Lautenberg, News Release: Flatow Family's Unprecedented Lawsuit Against Iran Will Help Deter Future Acts of Terrorism (February 26, 1997). The amendment, Civil Liability for Acts of State Sponsored Terrorism, was enacted on September 30, 1996 as part of the 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub.L. 104-208, Div. A, Title I § 101(c) [Title V, § 589] (September 30, 1996), 110 Stat. 3009-172 reprinted at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note (West 1997 Supp.). This provision of law is commonly referred to as the "Flatow Amendment."
The Flatow Amendment is apparently an independent pronouncement of law, yet it has been published as a note to 28 U.S.C. § 1605, and requires several references to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) et seq. to reach even a preliminary interpretation. As it also effects a substantial change to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), it appears to be an implied amendment. See 1A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION at § 22.13 ("An implied amendment is an act which purports to be independent, but which in substance alters, modifies, or adds to a prior act."); see also id. at § 22.20-21. The brief explanation of the Flatow Amendment's purpose in the House Conference Report explicitly states that it was intended to increase the measure of damages available in suits under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). See H.R. CONF. REP. 863, 104TH CONG, 2ND SESS.1996, reprinted at 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 924. Both the Flatow Amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) address the same subject matter, and were enacted during the same session of Congress, only five months apart. Interpretation in pari materia is therefore the most appropriate approach to the construction of both provisions, 1A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION at § 22.32. The amendment should be considered to relate back to the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) as if they had been enacted as one provision, id. at §§ 22.29-31, 34-36, and the two provisions should be construed together and in reference to one another. Id. at § 22.29 n. 16 citing United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 84 L.Ed. 1356 (1940). Interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and the Flatow Amendment in pari materia demonstrates the coherent legislative intent behind the two enactments.
Although the events complained of herein occurred more than a year prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) provides a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has expressly directed the retroactive application of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) in order to further a comprehensive counterterrorism initiative by the legislative branch of government:
The amendments made by this subtitle shall apply to any cause of action arising before, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [April 24, 1996].
§ 221(c) of Pub.L. 104-132. As the Supreme Court has stated with respect to the application of legislation to pre-enactment conduct, "[w]here congressional intent is clear, it governs." Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 837, 110 S.Ct. 1570, 108 L.Ed.2d 842 (1990). Although the application of statutes to pre-enactment conduct is traditionally disfavored, see Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988), where "Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach[,] there is no need to resort to judicial default rules." Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 271, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994).
Furthermore, the state sponsored terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity is a remedial statute. It creates no new responsibilities or obligations; it only creates a forum for the enforcement of preexisting universally recognized rights under federal common law and international law. See, e.g., Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 60, 139 L.Ed.2d 23 (1997) (discussing Torture Victim Protection Act). As with all other civil jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) "`speak[s] to the power of the courts rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties.'" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274 (discussing Civil Rights Act of 1991) (citation omitted). Almost all courts have upheld the retroactive application of long-arm statutes. See 2 SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION at § 41.09 citing McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957).
At the time of the act complained of herein, the terrorist acts enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) were federal criminal offenses, see 18 U.S.C. § 2331. Given mounting Congressional frustration at the refusal of the federal courts to find jurisdiction in cases such as Princz, Pan Am 103, Cicippio, and Nelson, and the progressive development of United States legislation and jurisprudence on the subject of jus cogens violations, see, e.g., Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767; Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232; Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 96, 136 L.Ed.2d 51 (1996); Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah, 921 F.Supp. 1189 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162 (D.Mass.1995). See also Princz, 26 F.3d at 1176 (D.C.Cir.1994) (Wald, J., dissenting), the creation of an exception to foreign sovereign immunity which provides jurisdiction over foreign state perpetrators of the acts enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) should not have been unanticipated. "[A]ny expectation ... [to the contrary] ... is rightly disturbed." Cabiri, 921 F.Supp. at 1195-96 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (discussing Torture Victim Protection Act), citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 273-275.
The Islamic Republic of Iran in particular has been aware of United States policy condemning international terrorism at least since the 1979-1981 hostage crisis in Tehran. It has been continuously designated a state sponsor of terrorism since January 19, 1984. Its continued support of terrorist groups has prompted the United States to suspend diplomatic relations and participate in the international embargo, including extraordinary enforcement measures such as trade restrictions. See U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM 1995 at 23; Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-72, 104TH CONG., 2D SESS. (August 5, 1996), 110 Stat. 1541. As international terrorism is subject to universal jurisdiction, Defendants had adequate notice that their actions were wrongful and susceptible to adjudication in the United States. Eric S. Kobrick, The Ex Post Facto Prohibition and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes, 87 COLUM. L. REV. 1515, 1528-30 (1987) (concluding that criminal statutes apply retroactively to international terrorist acts).
Therefore, the state sponsored terrorism provision implicates no Constitutionally protected interest which would prohibit the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) to pre-enactment conduct.
This action is brought pursuant to a new exception to the FSIA which was created as part of a federal initiative to combat international terrorism, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The state sponsored terrorism provisions represent a sea change in the United States' approach to foreign sovereign immunity. For the first time, Congress has expressly created an exception to immunity designed to influence the sovereign conduct of foreign states and affect the substantive law of liability for non-immune acts. Cf. H.R. Rep. 94 1487 at 12, reprinted at 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6610; First National City Bank v. Banco para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 619-20, 103 S.Ct. 2591, 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983).
Cases under the FSIA have considered choice of law issues almost exclusively within the commercial context, and have applied state rules of decision. See, e.g. First National City Bank, 462 U.S. at 620; Joseph v. Office of the Consulate General of Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir.1987); Guzel v. State of Kuwait, 818 F.Supp. 6, 10 (D.D.C. 1993); Skeen v. Federative Republic of Brazil, 566 F.Supp. 1414, 1417 (D.D.C.1983); see also Joel Mendal Overton, II, Will the Real FSIA Choice-of-Law Rule Please Stand Up?, 49 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1591 (1992). The notable exception is Liu v. Republic of China; however in that case, as the political assassination occurred in California, there was no true conflict for choice of law purposes. 892 F.2d 1419, 1425-26 (9th Cir.).
The federal choice of law rule follows that of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICTS, which provides that the law of the place of the tort is to apply. See Liu, 892 F.2d at 1425 citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICTS § 175 (1969). The Gaza legal code derives from an amalgamation of British mandate law, Egyptian law and Palestinian Authority directives and laws. See 1996 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS: ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES at § 1(e); available at http://www.state.gov./ww w/global/-human__rights/1996_hrp_report/occt-err.html; in addition to the administrative difficulties associated with interpreting this unfamiliar foreign law, the United States has a much stronger interest than the Palestinian Authority in Gaza in adjudicating this action arising from a United States citizen's wrongful death. When another jurisdiction has a stronger interest and closer connections to the case, it is appropriate to apply that jurisdiction's law. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICTS § 175 (1969).
The Supreme Court has recognized that the FSIA "codifies the standards governing foreign sovereign immunity as an aspect of substantive federal law" and that its application will "generally require interpretation of numerous points of federal law." Verlinden, 461 U.S. at 497. Subsequently, Congress created jurisdiction and federal causes of action for personal injury or death resulting from state-sponsored terrorism, including its own statute of limitations. These actions indicate Congressional intent that the federal courts create coherent national standards to support this initiative of national significance. In the interest of promoting uniformity of determinations with respect to the liability of foreign states for the terrorist acts of its officials, agents, and employees, this Court will employ interstitial federal common law to determine whether the terrorist acts were within the scope of their office, agency, or employment, as well as any other conclusions of law which typically rely upon state law.6 See United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 57 S.Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937); In re Air Crash Disaster Near Saigon, South Vietnam, on April 4, 1975, 476 F.Supp. 521, 527 (D.D.C.1979); see also Sandra Engle, Note, Choosing the Law for Attributing Liability Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; A Proposal for Uniformity, 15 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 1060 (1991/1992).
Article I of the Constitution establishes that Congress has "authority to enact laws applicable to conduct beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States." Aramco, 499 U.S. at 260-61 (1991). This Court's only duty is to determine "whether Congress chose to attach liability to the conduct outside the United States .... [A]s a court of the United States, we cannot look beyond our own law."7 United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416, 443 (2d Cir.1945). Congressional intent and legislative purpose demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) not only applies to extraterritorial conduct, but that one of its express purposes is to affect the conduct of terrorist states outside the United States, in order to promote the safety of United States citizens traveling overseas. See 142 C.R. S3454-1 (April 17, 1996) (remarks of Senator Hank Brown on consideration of the conference report); 142 C.R. H2129-05, H2132 (March 13, 1996) (remarks of Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on the proposed Antiterrorism Act); see 2A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 45.05, § 45.09.
Indicia of Congressional intent are readily apparent. See, e.g., EEOC v. Aramco, 499 U.S. 244, 260, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) (superseded by statute) (Marshall, J., dissenting) citing Foley Brothers, 336 U.S. at 285 (1949) (extraterritorial application may be discerned from the entire range of conventional sources). As 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5) already provides jurisdiction over state-sponsored terrorist acts in the United States, see Liu, 892 F.2d 1419; Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F.Supp. 665 (D.D.C.1980), the state sponsored terrorism exception would be redundant if it were held to apply only within the United States. The provision's arbitration requirement indicates that Congress intended 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) to create subject matter jurisdiction for claims arising from conduct which occurred within a foreign state. If Congress did not intend for 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) to apply to extraterritorial conduct, the arbitration requirement, which only applies in cases arising from acts which occur within a defendant foreign state's territory, would be superfluous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)(B)(i). Therefore Congress inherently expressed its understanding that this provision would necessarily apply to extraterritorial conduct.
The general presumption against extraterritorial application exists to prevent inadvertent interference with foreign relations. See NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490, 500, 99 S.Ct. 1313, 59 L.Ed.2d 533 (1979); McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 21-22, 83 S.Ct. 671, 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963); Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 69 S.Ct. 575, 93 L.Ed. 680 (1949). In actions pursuant to the state sponsored terrorism provisions, however, there is no danger of inadvertent interference with foreign relations; Congress specifically restricted its application to foreign state defendants which the State Department has determined are foreign state sponsors of terrorism. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)(A). There is nothing inadvertent about these two new amendments. Indeed, Justice Blackmun has opined that the presumption against extraterritorial application is inherently inapposite to statutes which on their face involve foreign relations, as Congress necessarily considered "distinctively international subject matter." Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155, 206-07, 113 S.Ct. 2549, 125 L.Ed.2d 128 (1993) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (distinguishing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936)).
This Court concludes that the application of the state sponsored terrorism provisions to extraterritorial conduct is proper.
In order to establish subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), a claim must contain the following statutory elements:
(1) that personal injury or death resulted from an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage taking; and
(2) the act was either perpetrated by the foreign state directly or by a non-state actor which receives material support or resources from the foreign state defendant; and
(3) the act or the provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an agent, official or employee of the foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, agency or employment; and
(4) that the foreign state be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism either at the time the incident complained of occurred or was later so designated as a result of such act; and
(5) if the incident complained of occurred with the foreign state defendant's territory, plaintiff has offered the defendants a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the matter; and
(6) either the plaintiff or the victim was a United States national at the time of the incident; and
(7) similar conduct by United States agents, officials, or employees within the United States would be actionable.
28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note. While elements (4)-(6) are pure questions of fact, elements (1)-(3) and (7) are mixed questions of law and fact, and, in the absence of settled precedent, require interpretation.
Plaintiff describes the cause of his daughter's death as an "extrajudicial killing" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). The state-sponsored terrorism exception to immunity expressly adopts the definition of extrajudicial killing set forth in the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(e)(1). That Act defines an "extrajudicial killing" as
a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.
Pub.L. 102-256 at § 3(a), 106 Stat. 73 (March 12, 1992), reprinted at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350 note. (emphasis added). Deliberate is defined as:
... Carried on coolly and steadily, especially according to a preconceived design; given to weighing facts and arguments with a view to a choice or decision; careful in considering the consequences of a step; ...
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 426-27 (6th ed.1990); see also H.REP. 102-367(I), 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 84. Other courts have found that summary executions, for example, would be considered "extrajudicial killings" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350 note. See Lafontant v. Aristide, 844 F.Supp. 128 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (dicta). In actions brought under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act, courts have suggested, in the context of command responsibility, that a course of indiscriminate brutality, known to result in deaths, rises to the level of "extrajudicial killings." See Hilao, 103 F.3d at 776-77; Kadic, 70 F.3d at 242; Paul v. Avril, 901 F.Supp. 330, 335 (S.D.Fla.1994); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 170 (D.Mass.1995); Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 672 F.Supp. 1531, 1537-38 (N.D.Cal.1987). See also In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 14, 66 S.Ct. 340, 90 L.Ed. 499 (1946) ("...a deliberate plan and purpose to massacre and exterminate ... unarmed noncombatant civilians ... without cause or trial ... and without military necessity.") (emphasis added).
The state sponsored terrorism exception to immunity was enacted as part of a comprehensive legislative initiative to squelch international terrorism—the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See 2A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION at § 47.03. Previous treatments of international terrorism by Congress therefore appropriately inform the interpretation of "deliberated killing". Id. at § 22.32. One statute in pari materia defines terrorism as
... mean[ing] premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2). As the state sponsored terrorism exception expressly incorporates a definition from the United States criminal code chapter on international terrorism, another definition from that chapter is also apropos:
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that—
A. involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
B. appear to be intended—
i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; ....
18 U.S.C. § 2331. Attempts to reach a fixed, universally accepted definition of international terrorism have been frustrated both by changes in terrorist methodology and the lack of any precise definition of the term "terrorism." See, e.g., U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM at vi, 1, 17; Louis Rene Beres, The Meaning of Terrorism— Jurisprudential and Definitional Clarifications, 28 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 239 (1995). Therefore, the United States characterizes rather than enumerates acts for the purposes of designating foreign state sponsors of terrorism and defining criminal terrorist offenses under federal law. Each of the acts listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) fully conform with the foregoing definitions and provisions.
This Court concludes that a suicide bombing conforms with each of the foregoing provisions and definitions, and therefore is an act of "extrajudicial killing" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7).
The state-sponsored terrorism provision adopts the definition of "provid[ing] material support or resources" set forth in the federal criminal code. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) incorporates 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(a) by reference, which provides that:
... "material support or resources" means currency or other financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, but does not include humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involved in such violations.
This Court concludes that the routine provision of financial assistance to a terrorist group in support of its terrorist activities constitutes "providing material support or resources" for a terrorist act within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). Furthermore, as nothing in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A or 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) indicates otherwise, this Court also concludes that a plaintiff need not establish that the material support or resources provided by a foreign state for a terrorist act contributed directly to the act from which his claim arises in order to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)'s statutory requirements for subject matter jurisdiction. Sponsorship of a terrorist group which causes the personal injury or death of a United States national alone is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction.
The law of respondeat superior demonstrates that if a foreign state's agent, official or employee provides material support and resources to a terrorist organization, such provision will be considered an act within the scope of his or her agency, office or employment. See, e.g., Guzel, 818 F.Supp. at 10; Skeen, 566 F.Supp. at 1417.
In the District of Columbia, whether an employer is liable for the torts of its employee depends on whether the tort was at least in part "actuated" by an intent to advance the employer's business, and the tort must be foreseeable given the employee's duties. Weinberg v. Johnson, 518 A.2d 985, 990 (D.C.1986); Guzel, 818 F.Supp. at 10. The acts of an employee under these circumstances, whether lawful or not, and whether expressly prohibited by the employer or not, can be imputed to the employer.
In order for an agent, official, or employee's unlawful conduct to be imputed to a government, however, the government must share a degree of responsibility for the wrongful conduct. The government must have engaged in the wrongful conduct, either deliberately or permissively, as a matter of policy or custom. See, e.g., Monell v. N.Y. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (discussing municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). This Court concludes that if a foreign state's heads of state, intelligence service, and minister of intelligence routinely provide material support or resources to a terrorist group, whose activities are consistent with the foreign state's customs or policies, then that agent and those officials have acted squarely within the scope of their agency and offices within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note.
The Flatow Amendment, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note, clarifies that the liability of foreign states and their officials must be comparable to that of the United States and its agents, officials, and employees officials. This Court concludes that if officials of the United States, while acting in their official capacities, provide material support and resources to a terrorist group which executed a suicide bombing within the United States, those officials would not be immune from civil suits for wrongful death and personal injury. See U.S. CONST. AMEND. 5; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The FSIA provides that personal jurisdiction over defendants will exist where Plaintiff establishes the applicability of an exception to immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1604, § 1605, or § 1607 and service of process has been accomplished pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b); Verlinden, 461 U.S. at 485 n. 5. Although service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608 has been calculated to provide adequate notice to foreign state defendants, see H.REP. 94-1487 at 23-26, reprinted at 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6622-25, Courts must make further inquiry; Congress cannot grant jurisdiction where it would be improper under the Constitution. Verlinden, 461 U.S. at 491; Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300, 308 (2d Cir.1981).
The Supreme Court has addressed personal jurisdiction in the context of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act only twice, and only in dicta. See Verlinden, 461 U.S. at 484 n. 5; Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, 504 U.S. 607, 619-620, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992). However, these brief analyses indicate that foreign states may not be entitled to all aspects of Constitutional Due Process guaranteed to individuals. The Court in Verlinden did not address whether an analysis beyond the statutory requirements was necessary to establish personal jurisdiction. See Verlinden, 461 U.S. at 485 n. 5. The Court in Weltover did not find it necessary to decide this issue, given the presence of "minimum contacts" sufficient to satisfy the Due Process Clause under the facts of that case, During its discussion of direct effects and minimum contacts in Weltover, however, the Court referred to South Carolina v. Katzenbach, in which it had stated that the "States of the Union are not persons for the purpose of the Due Process Clause," 504 U.S. at 619-20 quoting 383 U.S. 301, 323-24, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966).
As suggested in Weltover, the issue of whether a foreign state is a "person" for the purposes of Constitutional Due Process analysis has rarely, if ever, been squarely presented for consideration, 504 U.S. at 619-20. Most courts have simply assumed that foreign states were entitled to Constitutional Due Process protections, just as courts have assumed that foreign corporations are entitled to Constitutional Due Process protections, at least with respect to the assertion of personal jurisdiction. Once these trends were initiated, on the basis of an assumption, courts have been reluctant to reexamine this issue. See, e.g., Afram Export Corp. v. Metallurgiki Halyps, S.A., 772 F.2d 1358, 1362 (7th Cir.1985) (Posner, J.) ("Countless cases assume that foreign companies have all the rights of U.S. citizens to object to extraterritorial assertions of personal jurisdiction.... The assumption has never to our knowledge actually been examined, but it probably is too solidly entrenched to be questioned at this late date"). This Court does not face Judge Posner's disadvantage; 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) provides a clean slate.
The merger of subject matter and personal jurisdictional inquiries under the FSIA has contributed to the confusion in the jurisprudence of personal jurisdiction over foreign states. The majority of cases brought under the FSIA involve commercial activity, which requires an evaluation of the activity's effects in the United States. "Direct effects" language closely resembles that of Constitutional Due Process "minimum contacts." Tandem consideration of these overlapping yet fundamentally discrete analyses as a matter of practice in several Circuits has exacerbated the situation. See, e.g., Hadwin A. Cald, III, Interpreting the Direct Effects Clause of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's Commercial Activities Exception, 59 FORDHAM L. REV. 91 (1990). Commentators have noted this reference as a signal that, if the issue were squarely presented, it might decide that a foreign state is not a "person" for the purposes of Constitutional Due Process. See, e.g. Sarah K. Schano, Note, The Scattered Remains of Sovereignty for Foreign States After Republic of Argentina v. Weltover—Due Process Protection or Nothing, 27 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 63 (1994). The assumption thus persists that a full Constitutional Due Process analysis is required in all actions against foreign states.
It may seem appropriate to consider the foreign state commercial actor as a "person" for the purposes of Constitutional Due Process analysis, considering that
when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests [sic] itself ... of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates ....
Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907, 6 L.Ed. 244 (1824). However, the FSIA requires something more substantial than "minimum contacts" with the United States in order to sustain subject matter jurisdiction under the commercial activity exception. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2); Verlinden, 461 U.S. at 490 ("Congress protected from this danger ... by enacting substantive provisions requiring some form of substantial contact with the United States."). The other exceptions to immunity each have an inherent jurisdictional nexus with the United States, which exceeds "minimum contacts" requirements. See id.; H.REP. 94-1487 at 13-14, reprinted at 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6611-12. Therefore, an inquiry into personal jurisdiction over a foreign state need not consider the rubric of "minimum contacts"; the concept of "minimum contacts" is inherently subsumed within the exceptions to immunity defined by the statute. See Id.
Citing South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 323-24 and Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Inc. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982), Judge Silberman has noted the inadequacy of personal jurisdiction doctrine in cases involving disputes between governments within federal systems. See United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d 825, 832-33 (D.C.Cir.1995) (Silberman, J., concurring); see also Harold S. Lewis, Jr., The Three Deaths of "State Sovereignty" and the Curse of Abstraction in the Jurisprudence of Personal Jurisdiction, 58 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 699 (1983). When extended to the international system, the deficiencies of jurisprudence of personal jurisdiction increase exponentially, particularly in actions against foreign states.
The Supreme Court has already recognized that a State of the United States is not entitled to substantive due process. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 323-24. Similarly, several lower courts have held that the federal government, state governments, political subdivisions and municipalities within the United States are not considered "persons" for the purposes of Fifth Amendment due process analysis. See State of Okl. By and Through Derryberry v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 494 F.Supp. 636 (D.C.Okl.1980); City of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. v. Andrus, 532 F.Supp. 157 (D.D.C. 1980); El Paso County Water Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. International Boundary and Water Com'n, U.S. Section, 701 F.Supp. 121 (W.D.Tex.1988). See also Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) ("in common usage, the term person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it"). While these decisions have been made primarily within the context of federalism, see, e.g., *In re Herndon*, 188 B.R. 562, 565 n. 8 (E.D.Ky.1995) ("a governmental entity is not a person'"), in Weltover, the Supreme Court hints that this logic should be extended to the interrelationships between states in the international arena. 504 U.S. at 619. The only other court which has touched upon this issue has concluded that foreign states, like States of the Union, are not "persons" subject to liability under various federal statutes. See Rios v. Marshall, 530 F.Supp. 351, 372 n. 22 (S.D.N.Y.1981).
One judge of this Court anticipated this step five years prior to Weltover. In Palestine Information Office v. Shultz, the Court held that "[i]f the States of the Union have no due process rights, then a foreign mission' qua foreign mission' surely can have none." 674 F.Supp. 910, 919 (D.D.C.1987). Given the parallels in the procedural deference granted to both the United States and foreign states,8 this Court concludes that foreign states should hold comparable status to States of the Union and the federal government for the purposes of Constitutional Due Process analysis. But cf. The Export Group v. Reef Industries, 54 F.3d 1466, 1476 (9th Cir.1995) (discussing substantive law of liability). As the Supreme Court has recognized, personal jurisdiction can be waived because
[t]he requirement that a court have personal jurisdiction flows not from Art. III, but from the Due Process Clause. The personal jurisdiction requirement recognizes and protects an individual liberty interest. It represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty.
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. at 703. It would be illogical to grant this personal liberty interest to foreign states when it has not been granted to federal, state or local governments of the United States.9
The House Report's language is unambiguous—it states that in personam jurisdiction has been accommodated inherently within the statute; the language does not, whether expressly or by implication, grant a liberty interest for the purposes of substantive due process analysis. See H.Rep. 94-1487 at 13-14, reprinted at 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6611-12. Foreign sovereign immunity, both under the common law and now under the FSIA, has always been a matter of grace and comity rather than a matter of right under United States law. Verlinden, 461 U.S. at 486, citing Schooner Exchange v. M`Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812). Where neither the Constitution nor Congress grants a right, it is inappropriate to invent and perpetuate it by judicial fiat. See, e.g., Jay Conison, What Does Due Process Have to Do With Jurisdiction?, 46 RUTGERS L. REV. 1071 (1994).
Even if foreign states are invariably "persons" for the purposes of Constitutional Due Process analysis, Constitutional requirements have been met in this case. In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the Supreme Court expressly rejected a rigid formula for discerning the contacts necessary to satisfy due process. 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The reluctance to establish a minimum threshold of contacts based upon abstractions has persisted; "`[d]ue process,' unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances." Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961). Each case requires evaluation in light of its own unique facts and circumstances, in order to ensure that the exercise of jurisdiction complies with "fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316.
The Supreme Court has recognized that "reasonableness considerations sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required." Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 483-84, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). In a case evaluating a statute designed to implement United States policy to curb terrorism, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated that given "the broad discretion granted to the executive branch in foreign policy matters, appellants misstate the degree of [procedural due] process due ...." Palestine Information Office v. Shultz, 853 F.2d 932, 942 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (discussing the Foreign Missions Act). The Court held that while policy interests would never completely supplant the Due Process Clause, some areas were so committed to the political branches, such as foreign policy, that a statute implementing that policy could significantly lower the threshold of constitutional requirements, so long as there existed other processes to protect the defendant's interests.
Prior to the state sponsored terrorism amendments, the lingering effects of personal injury incurred overseas and continuing in the United States did not satisfy the requirements, usually under the commercial activities section, that the effects of the act be "direct." See Princz, 26 F.3d 1166; Martin v. Republic of South Africa, 836 F.2d 91 (2nd Cir.1987). See also Persinger v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C.Cir.1984) (U.S. Marine barracks overseas not within the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5)). The state sponsored terrorism exception, however, provides an express jurisdictional nexus based upon the victim's United States nationality. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)(B)(ii). The Departments of State and Justice have determined that
the legislation ensures that, where United States courts assume jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign, there is a nexus to the United States. This limitation balances the United States' interest in providing a forum for American victims of specified outrageous conduct against the interest of foreign governments in not being forced to defend actions with no connections to the United States.
Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae at 27-28, Pan Am 103, 101 F.3d 239 (2d Cir.1996).10 This reading is consistent with that of the Supreme Court in Verlinden, that Congress "enact[e]d [in the FSIA] substantive provisions requiring some form of substantial contact with the United States." 461 U.S. at 490.
When a state has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism and has been subject to economic sanctions, including an international boycott, for almost 14 years, there inherently will be very few contacts with the foreign states and its officials, as typically conceived in the commercial context. However, this case is brought against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its officials for actions in its sovereign capacity. Sovereign contacts, therefore, should be sufficient to sustain general jurisdiction over Defendants, at least for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). Even commercial actions under the FSIA embrace the concept of nationwide contacts. See Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 817 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1987); Ruiz v. Transportes Aereos Militares Ecuadorianos, 103 F.R.D. 458 (D.D.C.1984). The contacts between Interpol and the Department of Justice in the course of performing international criminal investigations have been held to generate sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction over Interpol for a defamation action in United States Courts. Steinberg v. International Criminal Police Organization, 103 F.R.D. 392 (D.D.C.1984).
Even in the absence of diplomatic relations, states actors, as a matter of necessity, have substantial sovereign contact with each other. They inherently interact as state actors in the international community and as members of the United Nations—the suspension of diplomatic relations has more political than practical ramifications, as the states will maintain unofficial contact through "interest sections" under the auspices of another state's "protecting power." Apolitical functions, such as service of process in this matter, continue to operate, albeit in a more circuitous fashion, through such contacts. This Court concludes that even if a foreign state is accorded the status of a "person" for the purposes of Constitutional Due Process analysis, a foreign state that sponsors terrorist activities which causes the death or personal injury of a United States national will invariably have sufficient contacts with the United States to satisfy Due Process.
The emphasis of the Due Process analysis required for jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) is most properly focused on the evaluation of fair play and substantial justice. See, e.g., International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.
All states are on notice that state sponsorship of terrorism is condemned by the international community. United States policy towards state sponsors of terrorists, has been made abundantly clear since the 1979-1981 hostage crisis in Tehran and the ensuing suspension of diplomatic relations with and establishment of international boycotts against foreign state sponsors of terrorism. Foreign state sponsors of terrorism could not reasonably have expected that the United States would not respond to attack on its citizens, and not undertake measures to prevent similar attacks in the future. In light of the mounting Congressional frustration at the inability of United States victims of foreign state abuses to obtain relief from any forum, it is manifest that Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) to ensure fair play and substantial justice for American victims of state sponsored terrorism.
As terrorism has achieved the status of almost universal condemnation, as have slavery, genocide, and piracy, and the terrorist is the modern era's hosti humani generis—an enemy of all mankind, this Court concludes that fair play and substantial justice is well served by the exercise of jurisdiction over foreign state sponsors of terrorism which cause personal injury to or the death of United States nationals.
Usually Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) defenses are considered taking the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Campbell-El v. District of Columbia, 881 F.Supp. 42, 43 (D.D.C.1995). However, because Defendants have defaulted, this Court has already made its findings of fact in Section II, supra. On the basis of those findings of fact, this Court concludes as a matter of law that, for the following reasons, Defendants could not sustain a successful Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) defense to this action.
The state sponsored terrorism provision provides a ten-year statute of limitations, and provides for equitable tolling of limitations of actions. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(f). This Court therefore concludes as a matter of law that the earliest possible date for the statute of limitations to expire for any action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note will be April 24, 2006.
The Act of State Doctrine generally precludes review by United States courts of official acts by foreign states. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964); Alfred Dunhill of London v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 691 n. 7, 96 S.Ct. 1854, 48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976), quoting Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456 (1897). The doctrine applies, however, only with respect to actions taken within the foreign state's own territory. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 423. Although the acts complained of may have occurred within the foreign state defendant's territory, such acts will not invoke the Act of State Doctrine.
Although the acts allegedly undertaken directly by the Republic of Chile to obtain the death of Orlando Letelier may well have been carried out entirely within that country, that circumstance alone will not allow it to absolve itself under the act of state doctrine if the actions of its alleged agents resulted in tortious injury in this country. To hold otherwise would be to emasculate the purpose and effectiveness of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act by permitting a foreign state to reimpose the so recently supplanted framework of sovereign immunity as defined prior to the Act "`through the back door, under the guise of the act of state doctrine.'"
Letelier, 488 F.Supp. at 674 (citations omitted).
Additionally, an act of state must also be valid in order for this court to decline to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Act of State doctrine; however, valid is not necessary synonymous with either United States law or general principles of international law. An act which is acknowledged to be within a state's discretion, although it violates federal and international law, can still be a valid act for the purposes of the Act of State doctrine, such as assisting an intrafamilial kidnapping by issuing a travel visa. Risk v. Halvorsen, 936 F.2d 393 (9th Cir.1991). Political assassinations ordered by foreign states outside their territory, however, are not valid acts of state which bar consideration of the case. See, e.g., Liu, 892 F.2d at 1432-34; Letelier, 488 F.Supp. at 673-74. This Court concludes that bus bombings and other acts of international terrorism are not valid acts of state of the type which bar consideration of this case, nor was the bombing complained of perpetrated within the Islamic Republic of Iran; therefore the defense of the Act of State Doctrine is not available.
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—
...
(7) not otherwise covered by paragraph (2), in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources ... for such an act if such act or provision of material support is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, except that the court shall decline to hear a claim under this paragraph—
(A) if the foreign state was not designated as a state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C.App. 2405(j)) or section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) at the time the act occurred, unless later so designated as a result of such act; and
(B) even if the foreign state is or was so designated, if—
(i) the act occurred in the foreign state against which the claim has been brought and the claimant has not afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in accordance with accepted international rules of arbitration; or
(ii) the claimant or victim was not a national of the United States ... when the act upon which the claim is based occurred.
The only plausible basis for a Constitutional challenge, Due Process, must fail. The state sponsored terrorism exception and the Flatow Amendment represent a valid exercise of police power by the federal government, which cannot lack Due Process. 2 SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION at § 41.06 n. 45 citing Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981) ("the use of such powers by the government is itself a way of exercising and affording due process of law.") Furthermore, a state has "no vested right to nonliability for injuries caused by public officers before the enactment of a statute permitting recovery." Id. at § 41.06 n. 37 citing Evans v. Berry, 262 N.Y. 61, 186 N.E. 203 (1933).
recovery for solatium resulting from death of adult emancipated child permitted: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin;
recovery for solatium resulting from death of child limited to period of child's minority: Florida, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania.