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

lawsuittortplaintiffjurisdictionmotionmotion to dismisssovereign immunity
lawsuitplaintiffjurisdictionmotionmotion to dismisssovereign immunity

Related Cases

Manook, Estate of, v. Research Triangle Institute
View Case »
Ramos v. Nielsen
View Case »
Reyes-Trujillo v. Four Star Greenhouse, Inc.
View Case »
Kashkool v. Chertoff
View Case »
Haman v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Usoyan v. Republic of Turkey

Facts

On May 16, 2017, Turkish security forces clashed violently with protesters outside the Turkish ambassador's residence in Washington, D.C. The protesters, opposing President Erdogan, had a valid permit and were protesting peacefully when they were attacked by Turkish security forces. The plaintiffs, including Lusik Usoyan and Kasim Kurd, filed lawsuits against Turkey, claiming assault and other violations. Turkey sought to dismiss the claims, asserting defenses of foreign sovereign immunity and the political question doctrine, which the district court rejected.

On May 16, 2017, Turkish security forces violently clashed with a crowd of protesters outside the Turkish ambassador's residence in Washington, D.C. Injured protesters, led by Lusik Usoyan and Kasim Kurd, filed two lawsuits in district court against the Republic of Turkey. Turkey moved to dismiss all claims against it, asserting defenses of foreign sovereign immunity, the political question doctrine and international comity. Rejecting all three defenses, the district court allowed both suits to proceed.

Issue

Did the actions of the Turkish security detail fall within the discretionary function exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, thereby granting Turkey immunity from the lawsuit?

Did the actions of the Turkish security detail fall within the discretionary function exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, thereby granting Turkey immunity from the lawsuit?

Rule

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a foreign state is presumptively immune from U.S. jurisdiction unless an exception applies, such as the tortious acts exception, which does not apply if the conduct is discretionary.

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602 et seq., a foreign state is 'presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts.'

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the Turkish security detail's actions were discretionary and determined that they were not grounded in legitimate security policy. The court noted that the protesters were merely standing on the sidewalk and posed no imminent threat, thus the actions taken by the Turkish security forces did not meet the criteria for the discretionary function exception.

The court analyzed whether the Turkish security detail's actions were discretionary and determined that they were not grounded in legitimate security policy. The court noted that the protesters were merely standing on the sidewalk and posed no imminent threat, thus the actions taken by the Turkish security forces did not meet the criteria for the discretionary function exception.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Turkey's motion to dismiss, allowing the lawsuits to proceed.

The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Turkey's motion to dismiss, allowing the lawsuits to proceed.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Lusik Usoyan and Kasim Kurd, prevailed because the court found that the Turkish security detail's actions did not qualify for sovereign immunity under the discretionary function exception.

The plaintiffs, Lusik Usoyan and Kasim Kurd, prevailed because the court found that the Turkish security detail's actions did not qualify for sovereign immunity under the discretionary function exception.

You must be