Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-10-07030/USCOURTS-caDC-10-07030-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 22, 2011 Decided February 17, 2012

No. 10-7030

SHAHINTAJ BAKHTIAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT-OF-KIN 

AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DR. CHAPOUR 

BAKHTIAR, AND ON BEHALF OF GOUDARD BAKHTIAR, A 

MINOR, MANIJEH ASSAD BAKHTIAR, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN AND IRANIAN MINISTRY OF 

INFORMATION AND SECURITY,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:02-cv-00092)

Michael P. Guta argued the cause for appellants. With 

him on the briefs was Henry E. Weil. 

Jessica Ring Amunson, appointed by the court, argued the 

cause as amicus curiae on behalf of appellees. With her on 

the brief was David W. DeBruin. 

Before: GARLAND and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and 

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

USCA Case #10-7030 Document #1359077 Filed: 02/17/2012 Page 1 of 5
2

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge 

KAVANAUGH.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: The question is whether 

plaintiffs may obtain punitive damages in their state-law tort 

suit against Iran without complying with the congressionally 

specified procedures for seeking punitive damages against a 

foreign nation. The answer is no.

I

As of early 1979, Chapour Bakhtiar was Prime Minister 

of Iran. During the Iranian Revolution that year, Bakhtiar

went into exile. On August 6, 1991, Bakhtiar was murdered 

at his home in the Paris area.

Bakhtiar’s family members asserted that Iran was 

responsible and filed suit in U.S. District Court against Iran 

and an Iranian government agency. Plaintiffs brought their 

claims under California tort law. 

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign 

nations are generally immune from suit in U.S. courts. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1604. But plaintiffs were able to maintain their case 

under the Act’s exception for state-sponsored terrorism. See

28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (2006).

Iran did not appear in the District Court to contest the 

suit. In 2007, the District Court entered default against Iran. 

The District Court then held a damages trial. At the time, 

plaintiffs sought only compensatory damages, and not 

punitive damages, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities 

Act prohibited the award of punitive damages against foreign 

nations.

USCA Case #10-7030 Document #1359077 Filed: 02/17/2012 Page 2 of 5
3

On January 28, 2008, before the District Court decided 

the damages issue, Congress passed and President George W. 

Bush signed a law amending the Foreign Sovereign 

Immunities Act. The new law’s relevant provisions – now

codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A – created a federal cause of 

action against foreign nations and allowed punitive damages 

against foreign nations. See National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 1083(a)(1), 

122 Stat. 3, 338-41. 

The new law set forth three options for plaintiffs with 

pending cases to seek punitive damages against foreign 

nations. See Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 1083(c)(2)-(3), 122 Stat. 

at 342-43 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A note). Each option 

had specific procedures and time limits. First, plaintiffs with 

pending cases could move to convert their suits into § 1605A 

cases, but they had to do so within 60 days of enactment of 

the new law (that is, by March 28, 2008). Second, plaintiffs 

with pending cases could refile their suits as § 1605A cases, 

but again they had to do so within 60 days of enactment of the 

new law (that is, by March 28, 2008). Or third, plaintiffs with 

pending cases could file related actions under § 1605A within 

60 days of enactment of the new law or within 60 days of 

judgment in their original case, whichever was later (here, as 

it turned out, by September 15, 2008). 

On June 6, 2008, after the damages trial had concluded 

but before the District Court had ruled, plaintiffs filed 

Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law. In that filing, plaintiffs cited § 1605A and requested 

punitive damages against Iran.

On July 17, 2008, the District Court issued its Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law and awarded $12 million in 

compensatory damages. The District Court denied punitive

USCA Case #10-7030 Document #1359077 Filed: 02/17/2012 Page 3 of 5
4

damages because plaintiffs had not complied with the specific 

procedures and time limits set forth in the new statute for 

plaintiffs with pending cases to seek punitive damages. 

Plaintiffs had not moved to convert their suit to a § 1605A 

case or refiled their suit as a § 1605A case by the deadline of 

March 28, 2008. Nor had plaintiffs filed a related § 1605A 

action.

On July 30, 2008, plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the 

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 

or, in the alternative, to vacate the judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).1 On February 16, 

2010, the District Court denied the motion. The court again 

concluded that plaintiffs had not followed the procedures and 

time limits set forth by Congress for plaintiffs with pending 

cases to seek punitive damages against foreign nations. 

II

On appeal to this Court, plaintiffs’ primary argument is 

that the options Congress set forth in the new 2008 law are

not the exclusive means by which litigants with cases pending

as of that date could seek punitive damages against foreign 

nations. Plaintiffs contend, in other words, that they were not 

required to comply with the procedures and time limits set 

forth by Congress in the 2008 law. Specifically, plaintiffs 

argue that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 provide 

alternative means for them to seek punitive damages against 

foreign nations. 

 1 Until September 15, 2008, plaintiffs could still have tried to 

file a related § 1605A action. But they did not do so. Nor did they 

assert that their June 6 or July 30 submissions to the District Court

constituted the filing of a related § 1605A action.

USCA Case #10-7030 Document #1359077 Filed: 02/17/2012 Page 4 of 5
5

We disagree. For plaintiffs with suits pending against 

foreign nations as of January 28, 2008, Congress provided

three options for obtaining the benefits of § 1605A and 

seeking punitive damages: a motion to convert the action, a 

refiling of the action, or the filing of a related action. Each 

option contained its own time limits, and Rules 59 and 60 do 

not create additional options free from those statutory time 

limits. 

Under plaintiffs’ theory, the procedures and time limits 

established by Congress would be largely meaningless, and

plaintiffs with cases pending as of January 28, 2008, could 

file a motion under Rules 59 and 60 long after the deadlines

established by Congress had passed. We cannot accept that 

interpretation of the statutory text. We must respect the 

balance that Congress struck in allowing punitive damages

against foreign nations but simultaneously imposing 

procedures and time limits for plaintiffs with pending cases to

obtain such damages. To bring a claim for punitive damages, 

plaintiffs here had to move to convert their case, or to refile 

their case, by March 28, 2008 (60 days after enactment of the 

new law). Or plaintiffs had to file a related action by

September 15, 2008 (60 days after entry of judgment in their 

original action). Plaintiffs did not pursue any of those 

statutorily provided options. As a result, plaintiffs may not 

obtain punitive damages from Iran.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments and find 

them without merit. We affirm the judgment of the District 

Court.

So ordered.

USCA Case #10-7030 Document #1359077 Filed: 02/17/2012 Page 5 of 5