Fallahi v. Raisolsadati
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-07013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Fallahi v. Raisolsadati, Judge Furman requested more information about immunity and postponed the initial conference without deciding the new service motion.
The order affected the plaintiffs’ attempt to serve Sayyid Ebrahim Raisolsadati and the scheduling of the case; it did not decide the underlying claims or Raisi’s ultimate immunity from suit.
What happened
In Fallahi v. Raisolsadati, the plaintiffs claimed that Sayyid Ebrahim Raisolsadati, also known as Ebrahim Raisi, was responsible for torture and killings connected to a 1988 massacre of political prisoners. They previously asked to serve him in New York while he attended the United Nations General Assembly, but the court denied that request because international agreements protected him from legal process during that visit.
The plaintiffs later asked to serve him outside the United States through several possible methods, including courier delivery, delivery through diplomatic channels, or publication. They argued that the court could allow service before deciding whether Raisi had immunity from the lawsuit itself.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not finally rule on the new service request. He asked the United States to explain whether its earlier immunity position also covered immunity from the lawsuit while Raisi remained Iran’s president, allowed the plaintiffs to respond, and postponed the initial conference indefinitely because Raisi had not been served or appeared.
The detailed version
- Fallahi v. Raisolsadati · No. 1:22-cv-07013
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 9, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act against Sayyid Ebrahim Raisolsadati, also known as Ebrahim Raisi. They alleged that Raisi was responsible for their torture or for the torture and extrajudicial killings of their relatives during a 1988 massacre of political prisoners.
The plaintiffs first sought permission to serve Raisi while he was in New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. The United States submitted a suggestion of immunity, stating that Raisi was protected from service of legal process under the doctrine of head-of-state immunity and under international agreements concerning United Nations and diplomatic privileges. On September 20, 2022, the court denied that motion because the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations protected Raisi from legal process while he was in the United States for the General Assembly. The court expressly did not decide whether he was immune from the lawsuit itself.
New Service Motion
The plaintiffs then filed another motion seeking permission to serve Raisi outside the United States. The proposed methods included registered courier, hand delivery through the Swiss Embassy’s U.S. Interests Section, delivery to Iranian interests or embassies in several locations, and publication. The plaintiffs argued that immunity was an affirmative defense to personal jurisdiction and should be addressed later.
The court stated that it was inclined to believe the United States’ suggestion of immunity required denial of the new motion, or possibly dismissal of the lawsuit. But the court found the government’s earlier submission ambiguous. Some language appeared to recognize broad immunity from legal process while Raisi served as Iran’s president, while other language addressed only service during his anticipated visit to New York. The United States had not specifically addressed whether Raisi was immune from the lawsuit itself as head of Iran’s government.
Court’s Action
The court invited the United States to file a supplemental submission addressing the new service motion and, more broadly, whether Raisi was immune from suit while he remained president. The deadline for that submission was November 22, 2022, and the plaintiffs’ response was due November 30, 2022. The opinion therefore did not finally grant or deny the new service motion and did not decide whether Raisi was immune from the underlying claims.
Because Raisi had not been served and had not appeared, the court postponed the initial pretrial conference indefinitely. The court entered no merits ruling on the plaintiffs’ torture and killing allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.