## Facts

- Family members and representatives of U.S. sailors killed or injured in the October 12, 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole sued the Republic of Sudan, alleging Sudan provided material support to al Qaeda that facilitated the attack.
- Plaintiffs proceeded under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) terrorism exception and sought damages in the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Plaintiffs attempted service under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by directing the clerk to mail the summons and complaint to Sudan’s embassy in Washington, D.C.
- Sudan did not appear, and the district court entered default judgments awarding substantial damages.
- Sudan later appeared and moved to vacate the default judgments, arguing service was defective because § 1608(a)(3) requires mailing to the head of the foreign ministry in the foreign state, not to an embassy in the United States.
- The district court denied the motion to vacate; Sudan appealed, and plaintiffs cross-appealed on damages.

## Issues

1. Whether mailing the summons and complaint to Sudan’s embassy in Washington, D.C., satisfied FSIA § 1608(a)(3)’s requirement that the clerk dispatch service by mail to the head of the foreign state’s ministry of foreign affairs.
2. Whether noncompliance with FSIA § 1608(a) deprived the district court of personal jurisdiction and required vacatur of the default judgments.
3. Whether the court should reach plaintiffs’ cross-appeal on damages after resolving the jurisdictional service issue.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held service was invalid under § 1608(a)(3) because plaintiffs sent process to the embassy in the United States rather than dispatching it to the head of Sudan’s foreign ministry in Sudan.
- Because proper service under § 1608(a) is a prerequisite to personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Sudan.
- The court reversed the denial of Sudan’s motion to vacate, vacated the default judgments, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the FSIA service requirements.
- The court declined to address the damages cross-appeal because the judgments were vacated for lack of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- FSIA § 1608(a) provides the exclusive, hierarchical methods for serving a foreign state; courts require strict compliance with its terms.
- Under § 1608(a)(3), service by mail must be addressed and dispatched by the clerk to the head of the foreign state’s ministry of foreign affairs, and mailing to a foreign state’s U.S. embassy does not satisfy that requirement.
- Actual notice or receipt does not cure defective service under § 1608(a).
- Absent proper FSIA service, a federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over the foreign state, rendering a resulting default judgment void and subject to vacatur.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit vacated default judgments against Sudan because plaintiffs’ embassy-directed mailing did not meet FSIA § 1608(a)(3), and defective FSIA service prevented the district court from obtaining personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign.


Kumar v. Republic of Sudan, 880 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2018)