ELAHI v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
United States District Court, District of Columbia
December 20, 2000
DARIUSH ELAHI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT-OF-KIN AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CYRUS ELABI, PLAINTIFF,
V.
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN AND THE IRANIAN MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND SECURITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joyce Hens Green, District Judge.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This is an action for wrongful death brought by Dariush Elahi,*fn1 the brother of Cyrus Elahi, a United States national, who, before he was killed on October 23, 1990 in Paris, France, was a former university professor and a dissident of the Iranian regime. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security are named as defendants for ordering the killing of Cyrus Elahi in an act of state-sponsored assassination. Jurisdiction in this case is founded upon those provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 ("FSIA"), as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1602-1611, that grant jurisdiction over foreign states and their officials and agents and that create federal causes of action for personal injury or death to American nationals resulting from state-sponsored terrorism.
Defendants have failed to enter an appearance in this lawsuit, notwithstanding the fact that service of process was made upon them in accordance with the statutory procedures. See 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (a)(4).*fn2 On August 14, 2000, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e) and Fed. R.Civ.P. 55(a), the Court entered an order of default against the defendants. Before the Court may enter a judgment by default in a specific monetary amount against the defendants, the FSIA provides that the plaintiff "establish [ ] his claim or right to relief by evidence that is satisfactory to the Court." 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e).*fn3 Accordingly, on November 8 and 9, 2000, the Court conducted a non-jury trial*fn4 at which the plaintiff presented the testimony of seven witnesses: Kenneth Roger Timmerman, Executive Director, Foundation for Democracy; Ladan Boroumand, Ph.D.; Jacques S. Boedels, Armand, Boedels & Associates; Dariush Elahi; Jerome S. Paige, Ph.D.; Patrick J. Clawson, Ph. D.; and Manouchehr Ganji, Secretary-General, Flag of Freedom Organization. Documentary evidence consisting of 106 exhibits also was introduced in support of plaintiff's claims. Because Iran has presented no defense, the Court will accept as true the plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence. See Higgins v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 99-377 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2000) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.); cf. Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba, 996 F. Supp. 1239, 1243 (S.D.Fla. 1997) (accepting as true the plaintiff's "uncontroverted factual allegations").
This Court has engaged in a systematic review of the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the legal issues raised by plaintiff's claim for relief. Upon the evidence adduced at trial, from which the following facts are found pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a), the Court concludes that, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e), the plaintiff has "establish[ed] his claim or right to relief by evidence that is satisfactory to the court." Accordingly, judgment shall be rendered in favor of the plaintiff as more fully set forth below.
[etc, etc...]
