Kumar et al v Republic of Sudan

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM OPINION the Court FINDS that Sudan's provision of material supportand resources to Al Qaeda led to the murders of seventeen American servicemen and women serving on the U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000, and enters judgment against Suda n under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. The Court takes UNDER ADVISEMENT the issue of damages as to each plaintiff. The Court will be considering the death of each individual as a separate case for the awarding of damages and will analyze the same under the evidence already presented to the Court and in consideration of any sums of money that have already been awarded. Signed by District Judge Robert G. Doumar and filed on 4/29/2014. (rsim, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

AVINESH KUMAR, et al,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL NO. 2:10cvl71

REPUBLIC OF SUDAN,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000, fifty-nine family members of
the victims filed suit against the Republic of Sudan ("Sudan") in 2004. In 2007, this Court found

that Sudan was liable under the Death on the High Seas Act and ordered it to pay economic

damages amounting to $7,956,344 plus post-judgment interest. However, the plaintiffs in that
case could not recover non-economic damages. The plaintiffs, along with four new plaintiffs

that were not party to that earlier case (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed a new suit against Sudan
in April of 2010 pursuant to the revised section of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
("FSIA") that Congress passed in January 2008. This time they sought the non-economic
damages that they were unable to recover under the Death on the High Seas Act (as well as

economic damages for the four new plaintiffs). Argument was heard on April 22, 2014, as to the
issue of liability, and the matter is ripe for decision on that point.
Plaintiffs are suing under the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, which provides that:

A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United
States or of the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in which
money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that
was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage
1

taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act if such act
or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an official,
employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or
her office, employment, or agency.

Sudan was properly served pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608 and has at all times relevant to this

action been designated by the U.S. Department of State as a "state sponsor of terrorism."1
Additionally, all plaintiffs are U.S. nationals and afforded Sudan a reasonable opportunity to
arbitrate. Therefore, all the jurisdictional elements of the Plaintiffs' claims have been satisfied.
The evidence that was provided to the Court showed that officials of Sudan, including

military personnel, directly and affirmatively supported Al Qaeda operations. Former Director
of the Central Intelligence Agency R. James Woolsey testified by deposition and adopted his
testimony as provided in this case's predecessor, Rux v. Republic ofSudan, 495 F. Supp. 2d 541
(E.D. Va. 2007). Additionally, Steven Emerson, Kim Peterson, and Lorenzo Vidino testified
based on their extensive experiences related to terrorism.
The connections between Sudan and Al Qaeda have been extensively detailed in the Rux
decision, as well as several decisions of in the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia. See, e.g., Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 826 F.Supp.2d 128, 139-46 (D.D.C. 2011).
Briefly, the support included providing illegitimate diplomatic passports, permitting Al Qaeda to

openly operate training grounds, providing military expertise and training (including explosives
training), restraining local police forces from interfering with Al Qaeda operations, and
laundering funds through Sudanese banks. Some evidence, as testified to by the experts in this
case, was derived from sworn testimony by one of Osama Bin Laden's own lieutenants, Jamal
Al-Fadl. That evidence showed that support specific to the U.S.S. Cole bombing included the

training of Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi (A/K/A Ali Qaed Sinan Harthi), one of the planners of
1 Sudan has been on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list since 1993. Dep't of State, Bureau of
COUNTERTERRORISM, COUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM 2012.

the attack, at one of the Al Qaeda training camps in Sudan and Sudanese facilitation of the

transport from Sudan to Yemen of the explosives used in the bombing.
Sudan did not object to any of the evidence. Rather, Sudan chose not to participate in
any of the proceedings of this case. Substantial notice was repeatedly given to Sudan through its
American embassy. Based on the lack of any opposing evidence or testimony and the credibility
of the evidence that was submitted, the Court FINDS that Sudan's provision of material support
and resources to Al Qaeda led to the murders of seventeen American servicemen and women

serving on the U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000, and enters judgment against Sudan under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1605A.

The Court takes UNDER

ADVISEMENT the issue of damages as to each plaintiff. The Court will be considering the

death of each individual as a separate case for the awarding of damages and will analyze the
same under the evidence already presented to the Court and in consideration of any sums of
money that have already been awarded.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to all Counsel of Record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Robert G. D
Senior Uni

DistrictJudge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NorfolkflVA
April 2^,2014