Lexplug logoLexplug

Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9390, 78 F.Supp.3d 379, 2015 WL 349208 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a foreign state designated as a state sponsor of terrorism is liable for providing material support to a terrorist organization that commits an act of extrajudicial killing, proximately causing the death of a U.S. national and emotional distress to their immediate family.


Facts:

  • Prior to and during 2001, the Islamic Republic of Iran, through its Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS), provided Hamas with millions of dollars in funding, as well as training and weapons.
  • Iran's support was intended to encourage and finance terrorist activities by Hamas against Israeli targets.
  • On August 9, 2001, Izz al-Din Shuheil Ahmed Masri, a member of Hamas, detonated a bomb inside a Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem, Israel.
  • The explosion killed 15 people, including Malka Roth, a 15-year-old United States citizen.
  • Malka Roth's immediate family members, including her parents and siblings, suffered severe emotional distress as a result of her death.
  • One of Malka Roth's siblings, Elisheva Roth, is profoundly disabled, and no evidence was presented regarding the emotional impact of Malka's death on her.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs, the family of Malka Roth, filed a complaint against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  • The defendants were served with process on September 16, 2012.
  • The defendants failed to file an answer or otherwise appear in the case.
  • The Clerk of the Court entered a default against the defendants on April 21, 2014.
  • Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for the entry of a default judgment on liability and damages.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Are the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security liable under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s state-sponsored terrorism exception for providing material support to Hamas, which resulted in the death of a U.S. citizen in a bombing?


Opinions:

Majority - Lamberth, J.

Yes. The Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security are liable under the FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism exception because they provided material support to Hamas, which proximately caused the extrajudicial killing of a U.S. national. The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, as all its requirements are met: 1) the plaintiffs seek money damages; 2) the defendants are a foreign state; 3) the claims arise from personal injury and death; 4) the death was caused by defendants' provision of material support for an extrajudicial killing; and 5) the support was provided by officials of the foreign state. The court found a 'reasonable connection' between Iran’s funding and training of Hamas and the subsequent bombing. Liability was established for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), allowing solatium damages for Malka Roth's mother and siblings. However, the survival claim for Malka's pain and suffering was denied for lack of evidence that her death was not instantaneous, and the IIED claim for her profoundly disabled sister, Elisheva, was denied due to a lack of evidence of her emotional injury.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the broad application of the FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism exception, allowing U.S. victims of terrorism abroad to secure default judgments against foreign state sponsors. It demonstrates the court's willingness to establish proximate cause between a state's general financial and logistical support for a terrorist group and a specific attack carried out by that group, often by taking judicial notice of findings from prior, related cases. The case also solidifies the use of the 'Heiser framework' as a standardized method for calculating solatium damages for the immediate family members of victims, while underscoring that plaintiffs must still provide at least some evidence of emotional injury to recover.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2015) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran