Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/838-f-3d-86-684244217
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:57:26+00:00

Document:
The Republic of Sudan petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of this Court's decision holding that service of process on the Minister of Foreign Affairs via the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., was sufficient to meet the requirements of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the " FSIA" ). The United States, as amicus curiae, supports the Republic of Sudan and seeks clarification on the issue of whether § 1610(g) of the FSIA overrides the requirement of a license from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. The petition is DENIED to the extent it seeks panel rehearing.
ANDREW C. HALL (Roarke Maxwell, on the brief), Hall, Lamb and Hall, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
CHRISTOPHER M. CURRAN (Nicole Erb, Claire A. DeLelle, on the brief), White & Case LLP, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellant.
DAVID S. JONES, Assistant United States Attorney (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York, for the United States of America as Amicus Curiae.
On September 23, 2015, we affirmed three orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Torres, J. ) directing certain banks to turnover assets of defendant-appellant Republic of Sudan (" Sudan" ) to satisfy a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs against Sudan in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the " D.C. District Court" ), in the amount of $314,705,896. Sudan petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, supported by the United States of America, as amicus curiae.
After further briefing and argument, upon due consideration, we adhere to our decision to affirm. The petition is DENIED to the extent it seeks panel rehearing.
FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § § 1330, 1602 et seq., alleging that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack and that Sudan had provided material support to al Qaeda.
As represented by plaintiffs, Deng Alor Koul was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sudan at the time.
On November 17, 2010, the Clerk of Court entered a Certificate of Mailing certifying that the summons and complaint were sent via domestic certified mail to the " head of the ministry of foreign affairs," via the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and that the return receipt was returned to the Clerk of Court and received on November 23, 2010. No attempt was made to serve Sudan by mail to the address of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Khartoum, the capital. Sudan failed to serve an answer or other responsive pleading within sixty days after plaintiffs' service, see 28 U.S.C. § 1608(d), and the Clerk of Court thus entered a default against Sudan.
On March 30, 2012, after a hearing, the D.C. District Court (Lamberth, J. ) entered a default judgment against Sudan in the amount of $314,705,896, Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 882 F.Supp.2d 23, 51 (D.D.C. 2012), and found, inter alia, that service on Sudan had been proper, id. at 28. At the request of plaintiffs, on April 20, 2012, the Clerk of the Court mailed a copy of the default judgment by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Sudan's Minister of Foreign Affairs, via the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C. While it does not appear that the receipt was returned, plaintiffs submitted proof that the mailing was delivered.
In affirming the turnover orders, we held that service of process on the Minister of Foreign Affairs via the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., was sufficient to meet the requirements of the FSIA. Harrison, 802 F.3d at 406. We also held that the District Court did not err in issuing the turnover orders without first obtaining a license from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (" OFAC" ) or a Statement of Interest from the Department of Justice. Id. at 407.
en Banc. Although it had not appeared in the earlier proceedings, the United States filed an amicus brief in support of the petition on November 6, 2015. After further briefing, we heard argument on March 11, 2016. We now deny the petition to the extent it seeks panel rehearing.
Sudan and the United States argue that the Panel Opinion misinterprets § 1608(a)(3) of the FSIA and puts the United States in violation of its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Apr. 18, 1961, 23 U.S.T. 3227 (entered into force in United States Dec. 13, 1972) [hereinafter " Vienna Convention" ]. In its reply brief, Sudan also makes the factual argument that the summons and complaint were not actually delivered to the embassy. Finally, as to the issue of the requirement of an OFAC license, the United States argues that the FSIA does not override the requirement of an OFAC license. We address each of these issues in turn.
Sudan and the United States argue that the Panel Opinion incorrectly interprets § 1608(a)(3) of the FSIA. We acknowledge that the statutory interpretation question presents a close call, and that the language of § 1608(a)(3) is not completely clear. Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed below, we believe, as a matter of statutory construction, that the better reading of the statute favors plaintiffs' position. Accordingly, we adhere to our prior decision.

References: § 1610
 § 1330
 § 1608
 v. 
 § 1608
 § 1608
 § 1608