## Facts

- Terrorist bombings on August 7, 1998, struck the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing over 200 people and injuring thousands.
- Victims, estates, and family members sued the Republic of Sudan and related ministries under the FSIA terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A.
- Plaintiffs alleged Sudan, a designated state sponsor of terrorism, provided material support and resources to al Qaeda, including safe haven, logistical facilitation, and assistance that enabled al Qaeda to build operational capability.
- Consolidated actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia proceeded largely without a merits defense after Sudan’s participation lapsed.
- After evidentiary hearings, the district court entered default judgments, found Sudan liable under § 1605A, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling over $10 billion.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1605A(a) grants subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against a designated state sponsor of terrorism for materially supporting extrajudicial killings committed by a non-state actor.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient admissible evidence that Sudan’s material support proximately caused the 1998 embassy bombings.
3. Whether § 1605A(b)’s limitations period is jurisdictional or a non-jurisdictional time bar subject to forfeiture.
4. Whether punitive damages may be awarded for conduct occurring before § 1605A’s enactment.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Sudan relief from default judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
6. Whether District of Columbia law requires a plaintiff to be physically present at the attack scene to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) arising from injury or death of a family member.

## Decision

- Affirmed subject-matter jurisdiction under FSIA § 1605A for all plaintiffs and claims, including where the terrorist act was committed by a non-state actor supported by the foreign state.
- Affirmed that plaintiffs presented sufficient admissible evidence of proximate causation between Sudan’s support and the embassy bombings.
- Held § 1605A(b)’s limitations period is non-jurisdictional; Sudan forfeited the timeliness defense in specified consolidated actions by not raising it below.
- Vacated all punitive damages awards, holding punitive damages were unavailable for conduct predating § 1605A’s enactment.
- Affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief from default judgments, including for alleged excusable neglect.
- Certified to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals the unsettled question whether IIED claimants must have been present at the scene.

## Legal Principles

- FSIA § 1605A(a) confers jurisdiction over claims against a designated state sponsor of terrorism for materially supporting terrorism, even when the extrajudicial killing is carried out by a non-state terrorist organization.
- Plaintiffs proceeding under the FSIA terrorism exception must prove, with admissible evidence, that the foreign state’s material support was a proximate cause of the terrorist act.
- Absent a clear congressional statement, statutory time bars are generally treated as non-jurisdictional; a non-jurisdictional limitations defense may be waived or forfeited.
- Punitive damages may not be imposed retroactively for pre-enactment conduct absent clear authorization; § 1605A did not clearly authorize punitive damages for conduct occurring before its enactment.
- Relief from default judgment under Rule 60(b) is discretionary and requires a strong justification; a defendant with notice that fails to defend on the merits may be denied vacatur.
- When local tort law governing damages is unsettled in an FSIA case, certification to the relevant state or local high court is appropriate.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld FSIA terrorism-exception jurisdiction and default liability findings against Sudan for materially supporting al Qaeda in connection with the 1998 embassy bombings, treated § 1605A’s limitations period as non-jurisdictional (allowing forfeiture), vacated punitive damages as impermissibly retroactive, left the defaults intact under Rule 60(b), and certified an open D.C.-law question affecting certain IIED recoveries.


Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017)