By: Derek Hawkins//September 8, 2015//
Civil
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: BAUER, FLAUM, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Seizure of Assets – State Sponsored Terrorism
No. 14-3344; 14-3327 Mary Wyatt v. Francis Gates
Plaintiffs awarded judgments in state-sponsored terrorism cases against foreign governments and who seek to attach property are not required to comply with notice requirements of §1608(e) before executing judgment.
“As we held in Gates, “§ 1610(c) simply does not apply to the attachment of assets to execute judgments under § 1610(g) for state-sponsored terrorism.” 755 F.3d at 575. We reached that conclusion based on the structure and language of the FSIA and its legislative history. We also found that conclusion was consistent with the legislative purpose behind the 2008 FSIA Amendments that added § 1610(g) to the statute. The purpose of those amendments was “to make it easier for terrorism victims to obtain judgments and to attach assets.” Id. at 576. “Exempting attachments under § 1610(g), that is, attachments stemming from terrorism related judgments, from § 1610(c)’s solicitous notice requirements is entirely consistent with the liberalizing purpose of the 2008 Amendments.” Id. at 576–77. The service of default judgments under § 1608(e) is one of § 1610(c)’s solicitous notice requirements, from which attachments under § 1610(g) are exempt. The Gates plaintiffs, as terrorism victims who obtained a judgment under § 1605A, could proceed to attachment and execution under § 1610(g) without complying with § 1610(c). That means they are also exempt from § 1608(e), at least as a prerequisite for 24 Nos. 14-3327 and 14-3344 attachment and execution. A failure to comply with § 1608(e) does not render invalid their attachment of assets and satisfaction of their judgment for state-sponsored terrorism.”
Affirmed