Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesdiscoverymotionappelleesovereign immunitypiracy
contracttortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesdiscoverymotionappelleesovereign immunitypiracy

Related Cases

L.M. v. Johnson
View Case »
Antoine v. U.S.
View Case »
Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez
View Case »
Khalil v. Napolitano
View Case »
Grinberg v. Swacina
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Doe v. Bin Laden

Facts

In January 2002, Plaintiff-Appellee John Doe filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in his role as executor of the estate and personal representative of his wife Jane Doe, who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as in his individual capacity. His complaint brought claims, arising from the events of that infamous day, of assault and battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, wrongful death and violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. 2333. On the conspiracy and wrongful death counts, Doe named among the defendants the nation of Afghanistan. He asserted subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1330, 1602 et seq.

In January 2002, Plaintiff-Appellee John Doe filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in his role as executor of the estate and personal representative of his wife Jane Doe, who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as in his individual capacity. His complaint brought claims, arising from the events of that infamous day, of assault and battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, wrongful death and violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. 2333.

Issue

Whether the noncommercial tort exception can be a basis for a suit arising from the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.

Whether the noncommercial tort exception can be a basis for a suit arising from the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.

Rule

The text of the noncommercial tort exception of the FSIA provides jurisdiction for cases that (1) are noncommercial, (2) seek 'money damages,' (3) for 'personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property,' (4) that 'occur[ed] in the United States,' and (5) that was 'caused by the tortious act,' (6) 'of [a defendant] foreign state or [its] employee . . . acting within the scope of his . . . employment,' unless (7) the claim is based on a discretionary act or (8) it is for 'malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.'

The text of the noncommercial tort exception of the FSIA provides jurisdiction for cases that (1) are noncommercial, (2) seek 'money damages,' (3) for 'personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property,' (4) that 'occur[ed] in the United States,' and (5) that was 'caused by the tortious act,' (6) 'of [a defendant] foreign state or [its] employee . . . acting within the scope of his . . . employment,' unless (7) the claim is based on a discretionary act or (8) it is for 'malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.'

Analysis

The court agreed with the district court that Plaintiff's suit was properly considered under the noncommercial tort exception to foreign sovereign immunity provided by 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5). The court found that factual issues persisted regarding whether the Taliban's actions in allegedly agreeing to facilitate the attacks of September 11, 2001, were properly considered to be the action of Afghanistan and whether any such actions were 'discretionary' under 1605(a)(5)(A). The court concluded that limited discovery to determine whether jurisdiction exists should proceed.

The court agreed with the district court that Plaintiff's suit was properly considered under the noncommercial tort exception to foreign sovereign immunity provided by 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5).

Conclusion

The court affirmed the ruling of the district court and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for further proceedings.

The court affirmed the ruling of the district court and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for further proceedings.

Who won?

The Plaintiff, John Doe, prevailed because the court found that the noncommercial tort exception applied and that further jurisdictional discovery was warranted.

The Plaintiff, John Doe, prevailed because the court found that the noncommercial tort exception applied and that further jurisdictional discovery was warranted.

You must be