Sign Up for Vincent AI
Diba v. Islamic Republic of Iran
On January 29, 2020, plaintiff Daniel Diba, a naturalized United States citizen, brought this action against defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”) (collectively “Iran”); and Seyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei and Hossein Salami (“Individual Defendants”) pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C §§ 1602-1611, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶ 1. This complaint arises out of the detention and torture of plaintiff by the Iranian government from March 2007 until approximately March 2010, and it seeks damages for the injuries he sustained and the pain he continues to endure. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 44, 98-105. Defendants have not appeared to defend their conduct on these claims, so plaintiff has filed a Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. # 26] (“Mot.”). Because the Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) or personal jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants to consider the Torture Victim Protection Act (“TVPA”) claim against them, the Court will DENY plaintiff's motion for default judgment. This ruling is based on technical legal grounds, and it should not be read to suggest in any way that plaintiff has not suffered enormously at the hands of the Iranian government.
The summary below is based on the allegations in the complaint declarations from plaintiff and other individuals - including his physician and family members - who have personal knowledge of the relevant events, reports submitted by experts on Iran, and documentary evidence supplied by plaintiff in support of his motion.
Plaintiff Daniel Diba is a naturalized United States citizen. Decl. of Daniel Diba, Ex. 1 to Mot. [Dkt. # 26-3] (“Diba Decl.”) ¶ 1; Certificate of Naturalization, Ex. 2 to Mot. [Dkt. # 26-4]; Compl. ¶ 55. He previously resided in Iran, where he worked as a businessman and imported cosmetic products. Compl. ¶ 11; Diba Decl. ¶ 7. In December of 2006, plaintiff was approached by three plainclothes IRGC agents who told him he had to “accept . . . them as . . . partners and give them 52% of [his] business, ” if he wished to remain in business. Diba Decl. ¶ 10; see Compl. ¶¶ 12-13. Plaintiff refused and asked the agents to leave his office. Compl. ¶ 14; Diba Decl. ¶ 10.
In March 2007, as plaintiff filmed a group of people who were protesting against government policies near his business, a “few individuals grabbed him and forced him into a van.” Compl. ¶ 15; Diba Decl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff was blindfolded and one of his captors hit him in the face with a gun stock, which broke his nose. Diba Decl. ¶ 11. Diba's captors, whom he learned were IRGC agents, then took him to a black site, where they beat him and interrogated him about why he was filming the protest and whether he had any dealings with foreign media or intelligence agencies. Compl. ¶¶ 16-17; Diba Decl. ¶ 11. The IRGC agents also “searched Mr. Diba's office and confiscated every computer and document.” Compl. ¶ 18; Diba Decl. ¶ 12.
After three days of interrogation, plaintiff was transferred to the Special Intelligence Court where, without a lawyer present, he was charged with bribery, spying, unlawful importation, and foreign exchange manipulation. Compl. ¶¶ 20-25; Diba Decl. ¶ 13. Plaintiff was then taken to the Ghezel Hesar Detention Center and placed in solitary confinement. Compl. ¶ 26; Diba Decl. ¶ 16. After five days, he was taken to the Central Unit of Intelligence and Security, where he was “repeatedly interrogated, abused and tortured.” Compl. ¶ 26; Diba Decl. ¶ 16. Plaintiff was placed in a solitary confinement cell, so small he could not stand or lie down. Compl. ¶¶ 28, 30; Diba Decl. ¶ 19. During the day, he was “beaten badly by interrogators with cables, ” and suspended from the ceiling by his arms. Compl. ¶ 29; Diba Decl. ¶ 19. “His torturers used a gas cylinder to apply heat to Mr. Diba's testicles, threatening that they wanted to cook them up.” Compl. ¶ 29; Diba Decl. ¶ 19. This torture continued for at least three months, occurring approximately every other day and sometimes twice a week. Compl. ¶ 31; Diba Decl. ¶ 21.[1]
Plaintiff was then transferred to the Counter-Intelligence Unit, where his torture continued. Compl. ¶¶ 31-32; Diba Decl. ¶ 22. His captors denied him water, broke his nose four times, pulled his nails, and hung him on the ceiling by his hands for over an hour every day. Compl. ¶ 32; Diba Decl. ¶ 22. “[H]e attempted suicide three times.” Compl. ¶ 32. Diba lost approximately 90 pounds during this time period. Compl. ¶ 34.
Around August of 2007, plaintiff's captors injected him with a chemical that was meant to facilitate a confession against his will. Compl. ¶ 35; Diba Decl. ¶¶ 25-27.[2] This chemical “caused his body to feel as though every cell was burning from inside, ” and resulted in his entire body badly blistering. Compl. ¶ 35; Diba Decl. ¶ 25; see also The Pictures of Daniel Diba, Ex. 15 to Mot. [Dkt. # 26-17]. Diba lost consciousness, and was taken to a hospital where he remained in a coma for fourteen days. Compl. ¶ 36; Diba Decl. ¶ 25. While at the hospital, Diba learned that his house, car, personal belongings, as well as a parcel of land he owned in western Tehran, had been confiscated. Compl. ¶ 37; Diba Decl. ¶ 44. In addition to his property, the combined value of which was worth over $3.3 million, Diba lost his business, which yielded him an income of $800, 000 to $1, 000, 000 per year. Compl. ¶ 38; Diba Decl. ¶ 44. Diba paid approximately $200, 000 in hospital bills over the next six months and given his physical and emotional state, he reports that he “looked for an opportunity to kill himself.” Compl. ¶ 39; Diba Decl. ¶ 44. When “his captors attempted to return him to the IRGC Counter-Intelligence Unit, [] he took hundreds of pills in an attempt to end his life rather than be taken back to that ‘hell hole.'” Compl. ¶ 41; Diba Decl. ¶ 23.
Four days after this suicide attempt, in approximatman Hospital Rs. for Suicide Attempt at 2, Diba was released from the hospital and from further detention on the condition that he refrain from contacting the media. Compl. ¶ 42; Diba Decl. ¶ 31. But in March 2010, he was again captured and interrogated. Compl. ¶ 44; Diba Decl. ¶ 33. This time, Diba “agreed to confess to whatever [the Iranian government] wanted as long as he would not be tortured, ” and he signed a statement that incriminated high ranking officials. Compl. ¶ 45; Diba Decl. ¶ 33. After Iran released him on a $400, 000 bail and confiscated nearly $2, 000, 000 of his business capital, Diba escaped to Turkey where he was granted refugee status. Compl. ¶¶ 46- 47; Diba Decl. ¶¶ 34-35. Diba moved to the United States as a political refugee in 2013, and he became a naturalized U.S. citizen in March 2019. Compl. ¶ 55; Diba Decl. ¶ 36; Certificate of Naturalization.
Diba suffers extensive and ongoing pain and psychological problems as a result of his detention and torture. The pain affects “virtually all parts of his body, ” and “will likely continue throughout his life.” Decl. of Faro Ted Owiesy, M.D., Ex. 11 to Mot. [Dkt. # 26-13] ¶ 15; see also Compl. ¶ 49 ().
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court on January 29, 2020. See Compl. It consists of eight counts, which allege: (I) a private right of action under the FSIA against Iran pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c); (II) assault and battery under the FSIA against Iran; (III) false imprisonment under the FSIA against Iran; (IV) hostage-taking under the FSIA against Iran; (V) torture under the TVPA against the Individual Defendants; (VI) loss of property under the FSIA against Iran; (VII) intentional infliction of emotional distress under the FSIA against Iran; and (VIII) punitive damages under the FSIA against Iran. Compl. ¶¶ 50-97. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, economic, and punitive damages against all defendants. Compl. ¶¶ 98-105.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides that the Clerk of the Court must enter a party's default “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise.”[3] And under Rule 55(b)(2), the Court may consider entering default judgment when a party applies for that relief. See Fed. R Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Because “strong policies favor the resolution of genuine disputes on their merits, ” “[t]he default judgment must normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.” Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 832, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980), citing H. F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
Under the Foreign Sovereign...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting