Doe v. Hyassat
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-06110
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Doe v. Hyassat, Judge Gardephe postponed the default-judgment hearing and ordered briefing on whether diplomatic immunity affects the court’s jurisdiction.
Jane Doe must provide supplemental briefing about diplomatic immunity before the court proceeds with her request for a default judgment. Mutaz Hyassat’s possible immunity remains unresolved, and the default-judgment hearing is postponed.
What happened
In Doe v. Hyassat, Jane Doe alleges that Mutaz Hyassat committed sexual assault in New York in July 2017, asserting claims for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Hyassat was served but did not appear or respond. After the Clerk issued a certificate of default, Doe sought a default judgment. The court determined that more briefing was needed because Doe’s filings raised questions about whether Hyassat had diplomatic immunity.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe postponed the hearing and ordered Doe to make a supplemental submission by January 13, 2023. The submission must address Hyassat’s diplomatic service, whether he held a position conferring immunity, which time period matters, and the scope of any immunity. The order did not decide whether immunity applies or enter a default judgment.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Hyassat · No. 1:18-cv-06110
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 13, 2022
Background
Jane Doe alleges that Mutaz Hyassat sexually assaulted her in New York, New York, in July 2017. She asserted claims for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Hyassat was served on July 18, 2022, but did not appear or respond. The Clerk of Court issued a certificate of default on October 12, 2022. The court then set a deadline for any motion seeking a default judgment and scheduled a hearing for December 16, 2022. Doe filed materials seeking, among other things, a default judgment.
Diplomatic-immunity issue
The court identified a threshold issue involving diplomatic immunity. In the amended complaint, Doe alleged that, when the assault occurred, Hyassat held a temporary position on the United Nations Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and was in the United States in a personal capacity rather than as a representative of the Jordanian government. She also alleged that he did not enter the United States to perform official diplomatic duties.
In other filings, however, Doe described Hyassat as a career diplomat who had worked with the United Nations. She submitted a curriculum vitae stating that he had been a career diplomat since 1999 and that his diplomatic work had included serving as legal adviser and Deputy Permanent Representative at the Permanent Mission of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the United Nations in Vienna. The court concluded that these filings raised a question about whether Hyassat might be entitled to diplomatic immunity through those other diplomatic roles.
Court’s action
The court explained that diplomatic immunity is a subject-matter-jurisdiction issue, meaning it can determine whether the court has authority to hear the case. The court therefore stated that immunity had to be addressed before a default judgment could be entered. It ordered Doe to file a supplemental submission by January 13, 2023, addressing Hyassat’s diplomatic service when the alleged assault occurred and afterward, whether he held a position that conferred immunity, the period during which any immunity applied, whether the court should consider his status at the time of the alleged assault or his current status, and the scope of any immunity.
The court adjourned the December 16 hearing pending completion and evaluation of the supplemental briefing. This order did not decide whether Hyassat has diplomatic immunity and did not enter a default judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.