Zuza v. Office of the High Representative

107 F.Supp.3d 90

Zoran Zuza, Plaintiff,

v.Office of the High Representative, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 14–01099 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed June 4, 2015

Zoran Zuza, pro se.

Mark Alan Cymrot, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action, Zoran Zuza asserts a range of claims arising from his removal in 2004 from government employment in Bosnia, pursuant to a decision issued by the High Representative, an international official tasked with managing peace agreement implementation efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because all defendants in this case are immune from suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act, the Court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1995, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina concluded with the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. See General Information, Office of the High Representative, Defs.' Ex. 2, ECF No. 4–4. The agreement established the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("OHR") to "oversee the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Peace Agreement on behalf of the International Community." Id. The Peace Implementation Council ("PIC"), a group of fifty-five countries and international organizations, supplies financial and other support for the peace process, and the PIC's Steering Board, of which the United States is a member, provides the High Representative with "political guidance." The Peace Implementation Council and Its Steering Board, OHR, Defs.' Ex. 2.

In 1997, the PIC endorsed the High Representative's authority to make "binding decisions, as he judges necessary" on various matters, including "measures to ensure implementation of the Peace Agreement throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina and its Entities." PIC Bonn Conclusions, Dec. 10, 1997, art. XI.2, Defs.' Ex. 7, ECF No. 4–11. These measures "may include actions against persons holding public office or officials ... who are found by the High Representative to be in violation of legal commitments made under the Peace Agreement or the terms for its implementation." Id. The following year, the PIC specifically affirmed the High Representative's authority to remove officials from government posts:

The Council acknowledges that leaders whom the High Representative ... bar[s] from official office may also be barred from running in elections and from any other elective or appointive public office and from office within political parties until further notice. This should end the practice whereby officials removed are re-assigned to political party positions.

PIC Madrid Decl. Annex, Dec. 16, 1998, art. X.4, Defs.' Ex. 8, ECF No. 4–12.

Pursuant to this authority, in 2004, then-High Representative Paddy Ashdown removed Zoran Zuza from his post as Chief of Cabinet of the Speaker of the Assembly of Republika Srpska, a region of Bosnia and Herzegovina. See generally Decision removing Zoran Zuza from his position as Chief of Cabinet of the Speaker of the RS NA and from other public and party positions he currently holds, OHR 279/04 (Jan. 7, 2004) ("Zuza Decision"), Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 1; see also Compl. ¶¶ 18, 19, ECF No. 1. The High Representative based this decision on findings that Zuza "[a]s a constituent of the current political culture within Republika Srpska, ... [was] derivatively culpable for contributing to the institutional failure to purge ... the political landscape of conditions conducive to the provision of material support and sustenance to individuals indicted under Article 19 [of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]" and that Zuza therefore "obstruct [ed] the process of peace implementation." Zuza Decision 4. The removal was "mandat[ed]," according to the decision, by the "principles of proper governance and transparency, protection of the integrity and reputation of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and active support for the rule of law and for the international obligations of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Id.

In 2014, Zuza, proceeding pro se, filed this action against OHR, Ashdown, and the current High Representative Valentin Inzko in his official capacity (collectively "Defendants"). See generally Compl. In his complaint, Zuza alleges that the High Representative's actions exclusively targeted Orthodox Serbs such as Zuza, imposing on them a stigma that deprived them of their ability to obtain employment. See id. ¶¶ 20, 24–29, 32–36. Zuza also alleges that the High Representative denied him due process, and that the decision to bar him from public office had inadequate legal and factual support. See id. ¶¶ 22, 30–31. In its ten counts, the complaint asserts a violation of the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and multiple tort claims under the law of this forum, the District of Columbia. See Compl. ¶¶ 56–116. By way of relief, Zuza seeks compensatory and punitive damages. See id. at 32.¹

Defendants moved to dismiss the action. See Defs.' Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 4. The motion is now fully briefed and ripe for decision.²

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the law presumes that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction[.]" Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). In determining whether jurisdiction exists on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, a court may "consider the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Coal. for Underground Expansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d 193, 198 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citations omitted). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider court filings and exhibits because they constitute "matters of which it may take judicial notice," Stewart v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 471 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C.Cir.2006), or documents referenced in and integral to the complaint, see Marshall v. Honeywell Tech. Solutions, Inc., 536 F.Supp.2d 59, 65 (D.D.C.2008).

Where a defendant international organization or official is immune from suit, the district court must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Lempert v. Rice, 956 F.Supp.2d 17, 25 (D.D.C.2013) (dismissing suit against international organization); Brzak v. United Nations, 551 F.Supp.2d 313, 318 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (dismissing suit against officers of international organization); cf. Phoenix Consulting Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C.Cir.2000) (holding that foreign sovereign immunity deprived district court of subject-matter jurisdiction).

IV. ANALYSIS

In their motion to dismiss, Defendants contend that subject-matter jurisdiction does not lie over this action because they are all entitled to immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act.See Mem. Supp. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss 8–13, ECF No. 4–1. For the reasons given below, the Court agrees.

A. Legal Framework

In 1945, Congress enacted the International Organizations Immunities Act ("IOIA" or "the Act"). See IOIA, Pub.L. No. 291, 59 Stat. 669 (1945) (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §§ 288 –288f ). As a general matter, in order to qualify as an "international organization" under the Act, an entity must satisfy two criteria provided in section 1—participation in some manner by the United States and designation by the President as an organization entitled to the protections of the IOIA:

For the purposes of this subchapter, the term "international organization" means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter.

22 U.S.C. § 288. Section 1 further provides that the President has authority to "withhold or withdraw" the privileges or immunities of such organizations or their officers, or "condition or limit [their] enjoyment." Id.

Section 2(b) and section 7(b) of the Act set forth the scope of immunity available to international organizations and their officers and employees, respectively. Section 2(b) provides that "[i]nternational organizations ... shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity...." Id. § 288a(b). Similarly, section 7(b) provides that "officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such ... officers[ ] or employees except insofar as such immunity may be waived by the ... international organization concerned." Id. § 288d(b).

In summary, as a general matter, international organizations and their officers and employees enjoy broad immunity from judicial process under the IOIA if the United States "participates" in the organization and the organization is designated by the President as entitled to such immunity. See id. §§ 288, 288a(b), 288d(b). But this immunity can be waived by the organization or limited by the President. See id. ; see also Mendaro v. World Bank, 717 F.2d 610, 613–14 (D.C.Cir.1983) (describing "two sources of limitation" for immunity under section 2(b)).

In 2010, Congress amended the IOIA by passing the Extending Immunities to the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the International Civilian Office in Kosovo Act ( "2010 Amendment"). See 2010 Amendment, Pub.L. 111–177, 124 Stat. 1260 (2010) (codified at 22...