CASES OF INTEREST click here to go back to the Cases of Interest         PROCEDURAL ISSUES: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY     Issue: Commercial activity exception/Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976   Issue: Tort actions under state-sponsored terrorism exceptions to FSIA .28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(7)     Issue: Commercial activity exception/Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 Commercial activity exception/Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). MIRZA SHAMIM AHMED BEG v ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, PAKISTAN ARMY, THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT December 22, 2003, No. 03-10849 Q Does a foreign government's expropriation of property and subsequent failure to compensate for the expropriation fall under the commercial activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act? 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) A. No. The Pakistani government's actions involve the power of eminent domain, a sovereign power and, therefore, not commercial. The actions at issue did not result in a direct effect in the United States. Mirza Shamim Ahmed Beg filed suit against defendants-appellees concerning the expropriation of land in Pakistan. 1. Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear claims against foreign governments only if authorized by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") 2. The FSIA roughly codifies the "restrictive theory" of sovereign immunity, which grants foreign governments immunity for their public acts but not their private, commercial acts carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States. back to the top     Issue: Tort actions under state-sponsored terrorism exceptions to FSIA .28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(7) AMIR REZA OVEISSI, Plaintiff, v. THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. 498 F. Supp. 2d 268( 2007) MIRZA SHAMIM AHMED BEG v ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, PAKISTAN ARMY, THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Q. Can US citizen plaintiff obtain jurisdiction against Iran and Iran Ministry of Information and Security(MOIS) under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's ("FSIA") section for extra judicial killing of a relative overseas and Intentional Infliction of emotional distress (IIED) under the "state-sponsored terrorism" exception, 28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(7) under California law? No. In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. sections 1330, 1602-1611, provides the sole basis on which a U.S. court may assert jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign. Plaintiff fell within the "state-sponsored terrorism" exception to the grant of immunity under FSIA, permitting him to file suit for money damages in U.S. courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (2006): (1) the State Department had previously designated Iran as a "state sponsor of terrorism" pursuant to section 6(j)[,] of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2405(j); (2) the victim or plaintiff was a U.S. national when the event took place; and (3) "Iran engaged in conduct that fell within the ambit of the statute." However the derivative wrongful death claim fails because the grandfather could not have sued had he lived, because he was not a US national as required by 28 USC 1605(a)(7)(B)(II). If no action could have been brought by the deceased if still alive, no right of action exists for the plaintiff. Plaintiff was a resident of California. The Court applied California law to plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff could not recover for IIED because plaintiff's living father, who was not a plaintiff, was entitled to inherit the grand father's property under CAL.PROB.CODE §§240, 6402. Therefore, plaintiff lacks standing under state common law. He was not considered to be the grandfather's immediate family member.   B GHOLLAM NIKBIN, Plaintiff, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. 517 F. Supp. 2d 416; 2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Q. Can US citizen plaintiff obtain jurisdiction against Iran and Iran Ministry of Information and Security(MOIS) under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's ("FSIA") section for state-law claims under the "state-sponsored terrorism" exception, 28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(7) under New York law?   A Yes The plaintiff established his claim under the core-functions test of the FSIA, that the core-functions of both MOIS and the Revolutionary Guards are governmental. Thus, these entities are to be considered the foreign state itself. As a general rule, state law should provide a cause of action against a foreign nation in a section 1605(a)(7) claim. The Court applied the law of New York, where the plaintiff was domiciled. Under New York law, the Court concluded that plaintiff proved his claim for assault, battery and emotional distress and was entitled to a default judgment and monetary damages. back to the top