The case of the day is Maalouf v. Iran (D.C. Cir. 2019). The cases arose out of the 1983 and 1984 bombings of US diplomatic missions in Beirut by Hizbullah and the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by Al Qaeda. The Iranian government has been linked to all of the bombings, and the Sudanese government to the bombings in Africa. I wrote about one of the cases in the lower court, Kinyua v. Sudan, about a year ago, and about Maalouf itself in April 2018.
The case of the day is Azadeh v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (D.D.C. 2018). Asfaneh Azadeh sued the Iranian government, asserting she was wrongfully imprisoned for months and was tortured in prison. She served process via diplomatic channels under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4), without first attempting service on the Iranian foreign ministry under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3). The court’s guidebook for service abroad seemed to permit this, saying: The countries of Iran and Iraq have not objected to service by mail. However, many attempts at service by mail or courier are unsuccessful. Therefore, it is okay for an attorney to request service directly through diplomatic channels (28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4)) without attempting service under any other provision first.
The case of the day is Kinyua v. Republic of Sudan (D.D.C. 2018). The case arose out of the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Since 2001, victims and their families had been suing Iran and Sudan, state sponsors of the terrorist attacks, under the FSIA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception to the rule of foreign sovereign immunity. The first round of cases resulted in default judgment against Sudan and Iran. Kinyua and others then sued, bringing similar claims. By that time, Sudan, which had defaulted earlier, was again participating in the FSIA cases against it. It moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The terrorism exception requires actions to be…