1 THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTR IC T C OU RT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

__________________________________________ EST AT E O F MI CH AE LHE I SER , e t. a l. ) ) Plaintiffs ) 00 -C V- 02 32 9 ( RC L) v . ) I SLAM I C RE PUB L I C O F I RA N, e t a l. ) De fe nd ants ) Consolid ated With __________________________________________) ESTATE OF MI L L AR D. CAMPBEL L , et al ) ) Plaintiffs ) 01 -c v- 02 10 4 ( RC L) v . ) I SLAM I C RE PUB L I C O F I RA N, e t. a l. )

) De fe nd ants )

_____________________________________________________________________________ M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION These c onsolidated ac tions, which are now in the post-judg ment phase, a rise fr om the 1996 terror ist bombi ngof the Khoba r Towe rs, a r esidential complex on a United States military base in Dha

hran, Saudi Ar abia. See Heiser v . Islamic Re public of Iran , 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) ( L amber

th, J .). At the time of the a ttack, the Khoba

r Towe rs housed membe rs of the United States Air F orce . Plaintiffs are the family members a

nd estates of

17 of the 19 office rs and a irmen who we re killed in the bombing . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) of the F or e ig n So ve re ig n Immunit ie s A c t ( F SIA) , p la int if fs lit ig ate d th is c ivi l a c tio n a g a ins t de fe nd ants the I slamic Republic of Iran, the Irania n Ministry

of Information and Sec urity , and the Irania n Re vo lut ion ary

Gu ard Cor p. Th e de fe nd ants did

no t a pp e ar i n th e se a c tio ns , a

nd , c on sis te nt w ith 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e), this Court ultim ately enter ed a de fault judg ment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $254,431,903.00. To date , that judgme nt remains unsatisfied.2

L ast y ear , the 2008 National De fense Appropriations Act (“ND AA”) ushere d in sweeping chang es in the law w ith respec t to civil actions ag ainst state sponsors of ter rorism. SeeP u

b
. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3, § 1083. See also Simon v . Republic of Iraq , 529 F.3d 1187 ( D.C. Cir. 20 08 ) ( c on str

uin g§ 1 08 3 a

nd dis c us sin gc ha

ng e s in the law w ithre sp e c t to a c tio ns a g a ins t st ate sponsors of terr orism). Amongother c hang es, Section 1083 of the N DAA r epea ls § 1605(a)( 7) and re place s that provision with an entirely new state sponsor of ter

rorism exception, 1605A. This new ena ctment is much more a dvantag eous to plaintiffs than §1605(a )(7) in many signifc ant respe cts. For

instance, in a ctions under §1605A, pla intiffs may now see k an aw ard of

punitive damag es ag ainst states sponsors of ter rorism. In a n e ff or t to lay c la im t o a

n a wa rd of punit ive dama g e s a g a ins t Ira n a nd to a c hie ve a ll the bene fits of the newstatute, plaintiffs, consistent with § 1803(c) (2) of the NDAA , filed a motion requestingthat this Court convert their prior action under

§ 1605(a) (7) to a ne w ac tion under the terms of § 1605A. This Court g rante d plaintiffs’ motion on J anuar y 13, 2008. See Dk. # 1 43 . Co ns ist e nt w iththat r uli ng , th is C ourt

is n ow in t he pr oc e ss o f r e vie wi ngpla int if fs ’
rec ommendations with respec t to additional damag es now available to these plaintiffs by virtue of § 1605A. In the motion now pending , plaintiffs ask this Court to provide a for m and proc edure for Lis Pendens , o ne of

the many ne w e nti tle me nts no w a

va ila ble to F SIA p la int if

fs wh o ma int a in their ac tions under § 1605A. Specif ically , plaintiffs rely

on 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(g ). That ne w pr ov isi on pr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s:3 (g ) PROPERTY DI SPOS I TI ON.— (1) I N GENERAL .—In ever

y action filed in a United States district court in which jurisdiction is alleg ed under this section, the filing of a notice of pendingaction pursua nt to this section, to which is attache d a copy of the c omplaint filed in the action, shall have the eff

ect of establishing a

lien of l i s pendens upon a ny re a l pr op e rt

y or tang ibl e pe rs on a l pr op e rt y that is

— (A) subje ct to attachme nt in aid of execution, or execution, under sec tion 1610;

(B ) located within that judicial district; and (C) titled in the name of a ny defe ndant, or titled in the name of

any entity controlled by

any defe ndant if such notice c ontains a statement listing suc h controlled e n t i ty. (2 ) N OT I CE. —Ano tic e of pe nd inga c tio n p ur su ant t o th is section shall be f

iled by the cler k of the district cour

t in the same manne r as a

ny pendingaction and sha ll be indexed by listi ngas def

endants a ll named def

endants a nd all entities lis te d a s c on tr oll e d b y

any de fe nd ant. (3) EN FORCEAB I L I T Y.—L iens established by rea son of this subsection shall be enfor cea ble as provide d in chapter 111 of this titl e. Ge n er al l y s p ea k i n g, lis pendens is a do c tr ine of

state law that e na

ble s p art ie s invo lve d in litigation over

rea l property

to file notices with the Court indicatingthat any rig hts conce rning that proper

ty are subject to the outcome of the civil litigation. See 51 Am. J ur. 2d Lis P e nd e ns § 2 (2008). Te chnica lly

speaking , a notice of lis pendens is not a lien, but, assuming the pr oper proce dures a

re a dhere d to, the leg al ef fec t of the notice is that any third-par ty purcha ser who
rec eives title to the proper ty is bound by

the outcome of

the civil case , without any additional rig hts to the property
. See id. Be cause a notice of lis pe nd e ns sever ely

undermines the alienability

of prope rty , the proc edure is usually limit ed to lawsuits that direc tly conce rn the rig ht to own or use r eal pr operty
. See id at § 8 . Some jurisdictions, however, have allowe d the doctrine to be used in a broa der r ang e of c ivil actions. See I d.4

Prior to the enac tment of § 1083, fede ral c ourts did not have proc edure s for the f iling of notices of lis pendens
. SeeElsea, Jennifer K ., Suits Against State Sponsors of T

errorism, Congr essional Resea

rch Ser v. Rep. RL 31258 , p. 51 (update d August 8, 2008). To the extent that parties in civil ac tions in t he fe dera l courts had a ny rig ht to avail themselves of lis pendens , it
was a rig ht only

to be found in the law s of the state jurisdictions and a dminist ere d throug h the state cour ts ex clusively
. Id . Now that § 1605A( g ) is on the books, howeve r, litiga nts pursuing
c ivi l c a se s a g a ins t st ate sp on so rs of te rr or ism are e nti tle d to a

fe de ra l lis pe nd

e ns proce dure administered through the fe dera l courts. No other fede ral c ivil actions qualify for suc h an extraordinary

measure . The ne w power

of lis pendens a ff

or de d to F SIA p la int if

fs un de r § 16 05 A i s e xce e din g ly broad. A t the very

outset of civil action ag ainst state sponsors of ter rorism, plaintiffs may

file a notice in any

fede ral district cour

t “establishinga lien of lis pe nd e ns on anyrea l property

or any tang ible persona l property” located within that fede ral district, provided suc h proper ty is subject to attachment in aid of

execution, or execution, of the civil judg ment that may be ente red in the plaintiffs’ ca se. See§ 1 60 5A (g )( 1) (e mph a sis a dd e d) . T his ne w s tatut or y pr ov isi on

of fe rs little in t e rm s o f s pe c if

ic g uid anc e fo r h owfe de ra l c ourt s mi g ht i mpl e me nt lis pendens . Thus, the devil may be in the deta ils with respect to this new fe dera lly require d and fe dera lly

administered proce dure. This Court suspec ts that a varie ty of leg al cha lleng es and pr actica l difficulties may arise a s plaintiffs in these terr orism case s initi ate liens of lis pe nd e ns in f e de ra l ju dic ia l di str ic ts throug hout the country
. Whil e the pr ecise scope, a pplication, and ef

fec tiveness of liens of lis pe nd e ns under § 16 05 A( g ) r e ma ins to b e se e n, su c h c on c e rn s n e e d n ot d ist ra c t th e Court

at th is t ime . In th e ir5

motion, the plaintiffs in He ise r and Cam pb e ll mere ly

ask that this Court establish the basic for m and proc edure that they

may use to beg in filing their notice s of lis pe nd e ns in acc ordanc e with the new law . The proc edure s that the plaintiffs have proposed in this instance a re r easona

ble and consistent with both the terms of § 1605A(g ) and the g ener al pra ctice of reg isteringjudgme nts on a district cour

t’s miscellaneous doc ket. Acc ording ly , a sepa rate order g rantingthe proposed f

orm and proc edure will be issued this date. I f at some f uture point in time the proce dure a pproved here appea

rs to be in nee d of re finement, this Court may revisit this matter sua sponte as the proce ss moves forwa

rd.

RO YC E C . LA M BER TH Chief Ju dge Sign ed on March 31, 2009