Abul Hosn v. Iraq Ministry of Transport et al
Filing
47
OPINION AND ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 38 MOTION for Default Judgment and DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REFAAT F. ABUL HOSN,
Case No. 2:16-cv-11652
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
IRAQ MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [38] AND DISMISSING THE CASE
On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Iraq Ministry of Transport
("IMT"), former U.S. Secretary of Defense Colin Powell, and former Coalition
Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer III for breach of contract. ECF
1. He also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 2. On May 17, 2016,
the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed
the case for failure to state a claim, because the IMT was immune from suit under
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"). ECF 3.
On May 24, 2017, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of
Defendants Powell and Bremer but vacated the dismissal of the IMT. ECF 10. The
Sixth Circuit held that, by dismissing the case before the IMT was served, the Court
had denied the parties "a fair opportunity to show whether the IMT's activities fell
within the exception[]" to the FSIA for foreign commercial activity that "causes a
direct effect in the United States." Id. at 69 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)).
1
The Court reopened the case and on May 2, 2018, a certificate of service to the
IMT was returned executed. The IMT has not responded. On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff
moved for default judgment against the IMT. ECF 34. On June 26, 2018, the Court
denied Plaintiff's motion, noted the heightened standard for default judgment under
the FSIA, and gave Plaintiff until July 12, 2018 to re-file his motion with the
necessary evidence to meet the heightened standard. ECF 37, PgID 259–60. On July
9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second motion for default judgment. ECF 38. On February 1,
2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not deny his
motion for default judgment for failure to secure the Clerk's entry of default. ECF 40.
On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a "motion for default." ECF 42. The Court
construed the motion as a request for Clerk's entry of default and ordered the Clerk
to enter default as to the IMT, which the Clerk did. ECF 44, 45.
The Court reviewed the motion for default judgment and finds that a hearing
is unnecessary. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). Because Plaintiff fails to meet the heightened
standard for default judgment under the FSIA, the Court will deny the motion. And
because Plaintiff had the opportunity to develop his claim through his motion for
default judgment and still failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
the Court will dismiss the case.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that in 1998 he, through his company, Abul Hosn
Development, Co. (AHDC), entered into a contract with the IMT to supply the IMT
with vehicles and equipment in exchange for oil. See ECF 38, PgID 261, 271. Plaintiff
2
alleges that he renewed his contract with the IMT in December 2003 through his
American company, CIF International. Id. at 262. Plaintiff alleges that the IMT did
not pay him for the vehicles or equipment. See id. at 261–62.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Foreign states are immune from suit in United States courts unless a specific
FSIA exception grants the courts jurisdiction over the foreign state. See Glob. Tech.,
Inc. v. Yubei (XinXiang) Power Steering Co., 807 F.3d 806, 810 (6th Cir. 2015).
The FSIA defines a foreign state as "a political subdivision of a foreign state or an
agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b)." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1603(a). An agency or instrumentality of a foreign state is "any entity—(1) which is
a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and (2) which is an organ of a foreign
state or political subdivision thereof . . . and (3) which is neither a citizen of the United
States . . . nor created under the laws of any third country." 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b). Once
the Court determines that a defendant is a foreign state, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that an exception applies. See Glob. Tech., Inc., 807 F.3d at 811 (citing
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2010)). If the
plaintiff carries his burden, then the defendant must demonstrate that its actions do
not satisfy the exception. Id.
The Court may enter default judgment against an entity covered by the FSIA
only if the "claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to
the Court." 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e); see also Compania Interamericana Exp.-Imp., S.A. v.
Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996) (specifying that
3
the rule applies to each element of a claim). When analyzing a motion for default
judgment in an FSIA case, "the Court may not 'simply accept a complaint's
unsupported allegations as true.'" Spaulding v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 5:16-cv1748, 2018 WL 3235556, at *3 (N.D. Ohio July 2, 2018) (quoting Rimkus v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163, 171 (D.D.C. 2010)). The Court must conduct a
further inquiry, such as considering evidence in affidavits and documentation. Id.
DISCUSSION
Here, as a ministry of the Iraqi government, the IMT is an agency of the foreign
state of Iraq. See, e.g., Sharpe v. Sierra Leone Ministry of Surveys, Lands and Env't,
No. 2:13–cv–00187, 2015 WL 247949, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 20, 2015) (holding that
Sierra Leone's Ministry of Surveys, Lands and Environment is an agency within the
meaning of the FSIA); Human v. Czech Republic-Ministry of Health, 824 F.3d 131
(D.C. Cir. 2016) (assuming the Czech Republic's Ministry of Health is an agency
within the meaning of the FSIA).1 Plaintiff can therefore sustain a claim against the
IMT only if his claim is covered by an FSIA exception. Plaintiff alleges that his claim
is excepted by the FSIA as commercial activity occurring outside the United States
that "cause[s] a direct effect in the United States." ECF 38, PgID 262 (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)).
Plaintiff's only question about whether the IMT falls within the FSIA is that it was
controlled by the Coalition Provision Authority ("CPA") during part of the relevant
time. ECF 38, PgID 262. Because the CPA was Iraq's transitional government, its
control over the IMT does not alter the Court's analysis.
1
4
Plaintiff fails to establish that his claim falls within the asserted exception.
Plaintiff alleges that the IMT's actions fall under the "direct effect" exception to the
FSIA because the IMT breached a contract with his American company, CIF
International. Id. at 263. The only contract Plaintiff provides evidence of, however, is
a contract between AHDC and the IMT in 1998. See ECF 38, PgID 282. Plaintiff
admits that AHDC is a Lebanese company, not an American company. Id. at 268.
Plaintiff instead argues that he renewed the 1998 contract in 2003 through his
American company, CIF International, and that the IMT breached the renewed
contract. Id. at 262. Plaintiff relies on the alleged breach of the 2003 contract to
establish a direct effect in the United States. See id. at 263. As explained below,
however, Plaintiff provides no evidence that the contract was renewed in 2003 or that
any contract ever existed between CIF International and the IMT.
Plaintiff attaches a copy of a December 22, 2003 letter that appears to be from
the Commercial Section of the General Company for Land Transport ("GCLT") to the
General Manager of the Administrative Department of the IMT, which states that
the GCLT met with Plaintiff but that "the contract was not executed." ECF 1, PgID
16. The letter appears to request the General Manager's approval of Plaintiff's offer
to the GCLT. Id. Plaintiff also attaches a 2007 letter between the IMT's Planning
Section and Iraq's Economic Affairs Committee which requests "the opinion of your
esteemed committee on the possibility of signing the contract total with the
mentioned establishment[.]" See id. at 25–26. The only "mentioned establishment" is
AHDC. Id. at 25. Plaintiff's alleged "copy of the renewed and extended contract from
5
2003," ECF 38, PgID 269, is another translation of the 2003 letter indicating that "the
contract was not executed," id. at 282. Similarly, Plaintiff's alleged "May 2007 letter
from the IMT confirming the renewed contract," id. at 269, is another copy of the 2007
letter requesting an opinion on the possibility of signing a contract, id. at 285–86.
Because Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that a contract existed between
CIF International and the IMT, he fails to establish that his claims fall within an
exception to the FSIA. His motion for default judgment will therefore be denied.
Because Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that an exception to the
FSIA applies, the IMT is immune from the Court's jurisdiction. The Court must
therefore dismiss the case.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment [38] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the
case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2019
s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on February 23, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David P. Parker
Case Manager
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?