Hoglan v. Rafsanjani

17-4035-cv Hoglan v. Rafsanjani UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of January, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. ______________________________________________ ALICE HOGLAN, named in her own right as a personal representative of the estate of Mark Kendall Bingham and executrix of the estate of Herbert K. Hoglan, deceased, A/K/A Alice Hoagland, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, HERBERT HOGLAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 17-4035-cv ALI AKBAR HASHEMI RAFSANJANI, et al., Defendants-Appellees, 1 ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. ______________________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Timothy B. Fleming, Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb PLLC, Washington, D.C. Appeal from the June 20, 2017 and November 17, 2017 orders entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Daniels, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the June 20, 2017 and November 17, 2017 orders are AFFIRMED. This appeal arises from an action brought against the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and its agents and instrumentalities (together, “the Iranian Defendants”) by the estates and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. See Hoglan v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 11-cv-7550-GBD (S.D.N.Y.). This action seeks to hold the Iranian Defendants liable for their role in the September 11 attacks pursuant to the “terrorism exception” to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. After the district court entered judgment as to liability against the Iranian Defendants, the plaintiffs sought individual awards of damages. Plaintiffs- Appellants appeal the district court’s rulings that they were ineligible to recover damages under the FSIA terrorism exception because each Plaintiff-Appellant’s deceased family member was (1) not a national of the United States, or (2) not the claimant’s immediate family member. I. Background The plaintiffs in the underlying action include fifteen estates of individuals who died in the September 11 attacks and their 278 individual family members (together, the “Hoglan Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs-Appellants comprise two subsets of this group: individuals who claim to be the “functional equivalent” of immediate family members of various decedents (the “Non-Immediate Family Plaintiffs”) and the estates and immediate family members of two decedents, Nicholas Rowe and Hagay Shefi, who were not citizens of the United States when ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals