Tratner v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Citation: Not availableDocket: Civil Action No. 2018-2971

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; July 19, 2022; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs William "Jack" Baxter and Baruch Tratner have initiated two separate lawsuits against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic, and Syrian Air Force Intelligence (SAFI) under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), alleging that these entities were complicit in terrorist attacks from December 2001 to September 2004. These actions build on a prior ruling in Baxter v. Islamic Republic of Iran, where Iran was held liable for similar attacks.

Both sets of plaintiffs have filed motions for default judgment since the defendants failed to respond to the lawsuits. The Court has reviewed these motions, applicable law, and the case records and has decided to grant the plaintiffs' requests. A special master will be appointed to assess the damages incurred by the plaintiffs, who are victims and immediate family members of the attacks, primarily attributed to Hamas.

The Baxter II plaintiffs previously attempted to include claims against Syria and SAFI in their original lawsuit but were unable to serve them properly, leading to the severance of those claims into the current case. They successfully served the defendants in January 2019, but default was entered against them in November 2020 due to their non-appearance.

In the Tratner case, similar claims were made concerning specific attacks, including a suicide bombing in Jerusalem in 2003 and mortar attacks in Gaza in 2004. Iran and Syria were served via diplomatic note in June 2019 but did not respond, resulting in defaults entered against both defendants in September 2019. The Court has already found Iran liable for these attacks in the Baxter I case.

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a court cannot issue a default judgment against a foreign state unless the claimant demonstrates their claim by satisfactory evidence (28 U.S.C. 1608(e)). The court has discretion in determining the type and amount of evidence required for the plaintiff to establish their right to relief (Han Kim v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044, 1047). Plaintiffs must prove both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendant state, as a judgment beyond a court's jurisdiction is void (Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 396 F. Supp. 3d 12, 21; Jerez v. Republic of Cuba, 775 F.3d 419, 422).

To satisfy the burden of proof for a default judgment, plaintiffs may use various evidentiary sources, including uncontroverted factual allegations and supporting documentary or affidavit evidence (Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 59). Courts may also take judicial notice of their own records from related proceedings (Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 856 F. Supp. 2d 109, 115). Given the prevalence of recurring issues in FSIA cases, courts often acknowledge earlier related cases (e.g., Lee v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 518 F. Supp. 3d 475, 480). However, courts must independently assess the evidence and make their own findings of fact, even when considering evidence from related cases (Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163, 172).

Plaintiffs allege that Hamas agents executed multiple terrorist attacks resulting in injuries to them. The Court will recognize the factual findings from the Baxter I litigation and the jury's determination in Linde v. Arab Bank, which ascribed responsibility for these attacks to Hamas. Two subject matter experts, Dr. Matthew Levitt and Dr. Ronni Shaked, who testified in the Linde trial, will be qualified again due to their expertise. 

Ten specific attacks are highlighted: 

1. **April 30, 2003** - Tel Aviv pub bombing by Asif Muhammad Hanif (killed 3, injured over 50).
2. **September 9, 2003** - Suicide bombing in Jerusalem's Cafe Hillel by Ramez Abu Salim (killed 7).
3. **June 11, 2003** - Bus No. 14A suicide bombing in Jerusalem by Abd el-Mu'at Shabana (killed 17, injured over 100).
4. **December 1, 2001** - Ben Yehuda Street suicide bombing by Osama Mahmud Eid Behar and Nabil Mahmud Jamil Halabiya (killed 11, injured over 188).
5. **March 7, 2003** - Attack in Kiryat Arba by Muhsin Muhammad Omar al-Qawasmeh and Hazen Fawzi Abd al-Sam'i al-Qawasmeh (killed Debra and Eli Horovitz).
6. **March 5, 2003** - Bus No. 37 suicide bombing in Haifa by Mahmoud Qawasmeh (killed 17).
7. **March 27, 2002** - Park Hotel bombing in Netanya by Abd al-Baset Odeh (killed 30).
8. **August 19, 2003** - Bus No. 2 suicide bombing in Jerusalem by Ra'ed Abdel-Hamid Misk (killed 23, injured 130).
9. **January 29, 2004** - Bus No. 19 bombing in Jerusalem by Ali Muneer Ja'ara (killed 11, injured over 50).
10. **September 24, 2004** - Mortar attack in Neve Dekalim by an unidentified group (killed Tiferet Tratner).

The Court found sufficient evidence linking Hamas to these attacks, including public claims of responsibility, official Israeli documents, and detailed testimony from Dr. Shaked regarding the recruitment of suicide bombers. The Court concludes that the plaintiffs have satisfied the evidentiary requirements under § 1605(e) and holds Hamas accountable for the ten terrorist attacks.

Defendants in the actions include Iran, Syria, and SAFI, all of which have been found by various courts in this District to provide material support to Hamas. This support encompasses funding, weaponry, training, in-kind services, and ideological backing, as established in cases like *Est. of Hirshfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran* and *Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran*. The plaintiffs assert that Hamas, which executed the attack, has long received substantial resources from Iran and Syria.

Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, with consistent acknowledgment from both the State Department and the Court regarding its support for Hamas's terrorist activities. For instance, an expert noted that in the early 2000s, Iranian financial support for Hamas exceeded several million dollars annually. Iran's support was channeled through the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), which employed around 30,000 individuals and allocated between $50 million and $100 million to sponsor various terrorist organizations, including Hamas. MOIS not only provided direct funding to Hamas but also facilitated training for its operatives.

Evidence indicates that support from MOIS for terrorism, including Hamas's activities, received approval from high-ranking officials in the Iranian government, with a requirement for the supreme religious leader's sanction for terrorist operations as early as 1983. Thus, Iran’s involvement in supporting Hamas’s terrorist actions has been shown to require senior leadership approval.

Syria has been recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. In the 1980s, Syria and Hamas established an agreement where Hamas committed to conducting acts of violence against Jews in exchange for Syria's provision of material support. By the mid-1990s, Syria facilitated Hamas operations by providing a base of operations and direct communication for executing terrorist attacks. Hamas utilized Syria's resources to organize political events and learn terrorist tactics, benefiting from access to military strategists and Hezbollah. Evidence also indicates that Syrian organizations funneled funds to Hamas and other terrorist groups. Although Syria and Hamas ended their collaboration due to Hamas's support for rebel forces during the Syrian civil war, at the time of their partnership, Syria substantially supported Hamas with funding, weapons, safe havens, and training.

Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is established under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which serves as the exclusive basis for jurisdiction over foreign states in U.S. courts. The federal district courts may hear nonjury civil actions seeking in personam relief against foreign states unless sovereign immunity applies. Here, all necessary elements for jurisdiction are satisfied: the plaintiffs seek nonjury civil relief, asserting claims against foreign states, specifically Iran, Syria, and SAFI, entities recognized as foreign states under the FSIA due to their governmental functions, particularly in supporting terrorism.

The FSIA allows for exceptions to sovereign immunity, particularly when claims involve personal injury or death resulting from acts of torture, extrajudicial killing, or similar actions by officials of the foreign state. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for injuries and deaths linked to Hamas attacks, which meet the criteria for jurisdiction. They do not need to be direct victims to claim damages; it suffices that their injuries arise from the actions of the foreign states.

Causation is crucial; plaintiffs must demonstrate a reasonable connection between the defendants' actions and their injuries. The defendants' support of Hamas, including funding and training operatives, establishes their conduct as a substantial factor in the attacks, resulting in foreseeable injuries to civilians. This evidence meets the causation requirement of the FSIA, confirming the court's jurisdiction over the claims.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) stipulates that plaintiffs' claims must stem from an "extrajudicial killing" or the provision of "material support or resources" for such acts, as defined in 28 U.S.C. 1605A(a)(1). An "extrajudicial killing" refers to a deliberate killing unendorsed by a judgment from a recognized court, a definition borrowed from the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). The ten attacks in question resulted in civilian deaths and qualify as extrajudicial killings because they were premeditated and lacked legal authorization.

"Material support or resources" encompass various forms of assistance, including property, services, and training, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2339A(b)(1). Such support must be provided by officials of a foreign state acting within their official capacity. The defendants—Iran, Syria, and SAFI—are implicated for funneling financial and training resources to Hamas, thus providing material support through state officials.

With the criteria for waiving the defendants' sovereign immunity met, the Court concludes that Iran, Syria, and SAFI are not entitled to such immunity and has subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1330(a). The FSIA's terrorism exception is applicable if: i) the foreign state was a designated state sponsor of terrorism at the time of the attack, ii) the claimant or victim is a U.S. national or government employee, and iii) the foreign state was given a chance to arbitrate the claim. All three conditions are fulfilled: Iran and Syria were designated as state sponsors of terrorism during the attacks, the claimants are U.S. citizens, and arbitration is not relevant as the acts occurred in Israel, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant states.

Personal jurisdiction in federal courts over foreign states requires (1) subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1330(a) and (2) proper service under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) as outlined in 28 U.S.C. 1330(b). The FSIA provides four valid service methods: (a) adhering to any special arrangements with the foreign state (28 U.S.C. 1608(a)(1)), (b) complying with applicable international conventions (28 U.S.C. 1608(a)(2)), (c) mailing documents to the foreign state’s head of ministry of foreign affairs (28 U.S.C. 1608(a)(3)), and (d) utilizing diplomatic channels if the first three methods are unavailable (28 U.S.C. 1608(a)(4)). Due to inapplicability of the first two methods for Iran and Syria, plaintiffs resorted to mail and diplomatic service. The Baxter II case was severed due to service difficulties with Syria. The Baxter II plaintiffs initially failed to serve Syria by mail in 2014 but achieved service via diplomatic note in 2019. The Tratner plaintiffs also attempted mail service in 2019, which was unsuccessful, leading them to use diplomatic channels, successfully serving Syria and Iran in mid-2019. They corrected a prior incomplete filing regarding service on Iran by submitting the full diplomatic notes in July 2022.

Lawsuits under the FSIA's terrorism exception must be filed within 10 years from either April 24, 1996, or the date the cause of action arose (28 U.S.C. 1605A(b)). None of the defendants have appeared, so the court cannot invoke a statute-of-limitations defense without a defendant's appearance, as established in Maalouf v. Islamic Republic of Iran.

Venue for civil actions against foreign states is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as specified in 28 U.S.C. 1391(f)(4), since Iran, MOIS, Syria, and SAFI qualify as foreign states under the FSIA.

Section 1605A(c) establishes a federal cause of action for victims of state-sponsored terrorism, closely aligning with the terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity. A foreign state can be held liable for injuries to U.S. nationals, members of the armed forces, or U.S. employees acting within their employment scope, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. 1605A(c). Since all plaintiffs are U.S. nationals, they qualify for this private cause of action. The Baxter I plaintiffs successfully demonstrated their entitlement to various damages including economic, survival, solatium, assault and battery, and punitive damages, which also applies to the Baxter II plaintiffs. The Tratner plaintiffs have similarly asserted claims. The Court has determined these claims represent valid theories of recovery against the defendants. Consequently, the Court grants motions for default judgment regarding liability for both the Baxter II and Tratner plaintiffs. The Court will refer these claims to special master Alan L. Balaran for evidence gathering and recommendations on individual damage measures. Additionally, plaintiffs lacking proof of citizenship must provide documentation to the special master; failure to do so will result in dismissal of their claims.