Intervention by the Peterson Plaintiffs in Rubin v. Iran

February 4, 2011

The Rubin family levied upon the antiquities collection owned by Iran in the hands of the Oriental institute of the University of Chicago.  The Peterson plaintiffs survivors and family members of the marine barracks bombing successfully intervened.  As of February 2011, the seventh circuit is considering jurisdictional challenges.

View the minute order here


Obtaining Answers to Discovery from Foreign Sovereigns

February 4, 2011

While foreign sovereigns are generally immune from falling under the jurisdiction of US courts, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides that state sponsors of terrorism are no longer protected from being sued in US courts if certain conditions are met.

Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign, it also has jurisdiction to compel compliance with its orders. In the case of Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the judgment creditors sought  post judgment discovery responses from Iran to aid in the collection of a $2.7 Billion  judgment.  Iran failed to respond to the discovery requests, and the court entered an order compelling discovery.

View the order here
Citation: 2008 WL 8216327

Peterson v. Iran

December 20, 2010

On October 23, 1983, 241 U.S. Servicemen serving as civilian peace keepers in Beirut, Lebanon were killed when two converted water tankers loaded with explosives were detonated next two the barracks where the servicemen slept. This attack was the single deadliest terror attack on American citizens prior to 9/11.

The attack was perpetrated by the terrorist organization Hezbollah and funded by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The families of the victims of this attack eventually obtained a $2.6 billion judgment against Iran for its involvement in the attacks.

The families of the victims sought to collect their judgment by levying on the shipping companies which conducted business with Iran. In response to these levies, the shipping companies raised the sovereign immunity of Iran as a shield to not comply.

The trial court found that rather than being an affirmative defense which could only be raised by Iran, the issue of sovereign immunity could be raised sua sponte by the court.

In a 2-1 decision, The 9th Circuit upheld the decision of the trial court. Read the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision Here