Source: http://dc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090331_0000392.DDC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 21:01:12
Document Index: 594457288

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1605', '§ 1608', '§ 1083', '§ 1083', '§ 1605', '§1605', '§1605', '§ 1803', '§ 1605', '§ 1605', '§ 1605', '§ 1605', '§ 1605', '§ 2', '§ 8', '§ 1083', '§ 1605']

| Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran
ESTATE OF MICHAEL HEISER, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFSv.ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, ET AL. DEFENDANTSESTATE OF MILLAR D. CAMPBELL, ET AL PLAINTIFFSv.ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS
These consolidated actions, which are now in the post-judgment phase, arise from the 1996 terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers, a residential complex on a United States military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. See Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (Lamberth, J.). At the time of the attack, the Khobar Towers housed members of the United States Air Force. Plaintiffs are the family members and estates of 17 of the 19 officers and airmen who were killed in the bombing. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), plaintiffs litigated this civil action against defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp. The defendants did not appear in these actions, and, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e), this Court ultimately entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $254,431,903.00. To date, that judgment remains unsatisfied.
Last year, the 2008 National Defense Appropriations Act ("NDAA") ushered in sweeping changes in the law with respect to civil actions against state sponsors of terrorism. See Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3, § 1083. See also Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (construing § 1083 and discussing changes in the law with respect to actions against state sponsors of terrorism). Among other changes, Section 1083 of the NDAA repeals § 1605(a)(7) and replaces that provision with an entirely new state sponsor of terrorism exception, 1605A. This new enactment is much more advantageous to plaintiffs than §1605(a)(7) in many signifcant respects. For instance, in actions under §1605A, plaintiffs may now seek an award of punitive damages against states sponsors of terrorism.
In an effort to lay claim to an award of punitive damages against Iran and to achieve all the benefits of the new statute, plaintiffs, consistent with § 1803(c)(2) of the NDAA, filed a motion requesting that this Court convert their prior action under § 1605(a)(7) to a new action under the terms of § 1605A. This Court granted plaintiffs' motion on January 13, 2008. See Dk. # 143. Consistent with that ruling, this Court is now in the process of reviewing plaintiffs' recommendations with respect to additional damages now available to these plaintiffs by virtue of § 1605A.
In the motion now pending, plaintiffs ask this Court to provide a form and procedure for Lis Pendens, one of the many new entitlements now available to FSIA plaintiffs who maintain their actions under § 1605A. Specifically, plaintiffs rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(g). That new provision provides as follows:
Generally speaking, lis pendens is a doctrine of state law that enables parties involved in litigation over real property to file notices with the Court indicating that any rights concerning that property are subject to the outcome of the civil litigation. See 51 Am. Jur. 2d Lis Pendens § 2(2008). Technically speaking, a notice of lis pendens is not a lien, but, assuming the proper procedures are adhered to, the legal effect of the notice is that any third-party purchaser who receives title to the property is bound by the outcome of the civil case, without any additional rights to the property. See id. Because a notice of lis pendens severely undermines the alienability of property, the procedure is usually limited to lawsuits that directly concern the right to own or use real property. See id at § 8. Some jurisdictions, however, have allowed the doctrine to be used in a broader range of civil actions. See Id.
Prior to the enactment of § 1083, federal courts did not have procedures for the filing of notices of lis pendens. See Elsea, Jennifer K., Suits Against State Sponsors of Terrorism, Congressional Research Serv. Rep. RL31258, p. 51 (updated August 8, 2008). To the extent that parties in civil actions in the federal courts had any right to avail themselves of lis pendens, it was a right only to be found in the laws of the state jurisdictions and administered through the state courts exclusively. Id. Now that § 1605A(g) is on the books, however, litigants pursuing civil cases against state sponsors of terrorism are ...