Opinion ID: 745877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims

Text: 18 Retroactivity is not an issue with respect to Plaintiffs' intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The FSIA applies to these claims because some of the alleged tortious acts that caused the emotional distress--the false publicity campaign in the United States--occurred after the FSIA became law in 1976. Thus, applying the FSIA, we must determine whether an exception exists to the general grant of foreign sovereign immunity. 19 The FSIA's noncommercial tort exception applies to the Plaintiffs' emotional distress claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5). We noted in Olsen that § 1605(a)(5)'s plain language merely requires the injury to take place in the United States, not the act or conduct that causes the injury. 729 F.2d at 645. Regardless of the plain language, we explained that § 1605(a)(5)'s legislative history indicates that 'the tortious act or omission must occur within the jurisdiction of the United States.'  Id. (emphasis added) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong., at 21 (1976)). Thus, in Olsen we held that if plaintiffs allege at least one entire tort occurring in the United States, they may [assert a] claim under § 1605(a)(5). Id. at 646. 20 In this case, Plaintiffs have alleged at least one entire tort occurring within the United States. Plaintiffs allege that Russia and Soviet news agencies engaged in a publicity campaign in the United States based on the falsehood that the Polish prisoners were killed by the Nazis rather than by the Soviet secret police. Plaintiffs also allege that Russia misled them about the nature of their relatives' deaths and the location of their relatives' remains. Because these alleged tortious acts constitute two entire torts occurring in the United States, the noncommercial tort exception to foreign sovereign immunity applies. 21 But Russia is still entitled to immunity if an exception to the noncommercial tort exception applies. With respect to Plaintiffs' emotional distress claims, Russia is entitled to sovereign immunity based on the libel exception to the noncommercial tort exception. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5)(B). 22 Section 1605(a)(5)(B) states that the noncommercial tort exception to sovereign immunity will not apply to any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit or interference with contract rights. Id. (emphasis added). Section 1605(a)(5)(B)'s plain language leads us to conclude that the libel exception to the noncommercial tort exception applies to Plaintiffs' emotional distress claim. These claims arise out of the Soviet Union's misrepresentation and deceit during its disinformation campaign relating to the massacre and the location of the victims' remains. 23 This interpretation of § 1605(a)(5)(B) is supported by examining the analogous provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). See Gregorian v. Izvestia, 658 F.Supp. 1224, 1233-34 (C.D.Cal.1987) (noting that the exceptions in § 1605(a)(5)(B) mirror the exceptions of FTCA § 2680(h)), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 871 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 (1989). Both the FTCA and the FSIA's libel exception prohibit any claim arising out of certain enumerated torts. In interpreting the arising out of language in the FTCA, we have held that an emotional distress claim arises out of an excluded tort if that tort must be proved for the underlying claim to succeed. See, e.g., Thomas-Lazear v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.1988) (noting that if government actions that constitute a barred slander claim are essential to an underlying emotional distress claim, then the emotional distress claim is also barred). 24 Because Plaintiffs' emotional distress claims arise out of barred claims--misrepresentation and deceit--Russia is entitled to sovereign immunity as to the Plaintiffs' emotional distress claims. 25