Iran Told to Pay $10.5 Billion for 911 twin towers attack

[Will Wiley]

Iran Told to Pay $10.5 Billion to Sept. 11 Kin, Insurers

U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.
Daniels also awarded $3 billion to insurers including Chubb Ltd. that paid property damage, business interruption and other claims.
Earlier in the case, Daniels found that Iran had failed to defend claims that it aided the Sept. 11 hijackers and was therefore liable for damages tied to the attacks. Daniels’s ruling Wednesday adopts damages findings by a U.S. magistrate judge in December. While it is difficult to collect damages from an unwilling foreign nation, the plaintiffs may try to collect part of the judgments using a law that permits parties to tap terrorists’ assets frozen by the government.
The case is In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Iran Told to Pay $10.5 Billion to Sept. 11 Kin, Insurers

U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.
Daniels also awarded $3 billion to insurers including Chubb Ltd. that paid property damage, business interruption and other claims.
Earlier in the case, Daniels found that Iran had failed to defend claims that it aided the Sept. 11 hijackers and was therefore liable for damages tied to the attacks. Daniels’s ruling Wednesday adopts damages findings by a U.S. magistrate judge in December. While it is difficult to collect damages from an unwilling foreign nation, the plaintiffs may try to collect part of the judgments using a law that permits parties to tap terrorists’ assets frozen by the government.
The case is In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Bolded part: I see what you did there. Deliberately understating the fact that it is BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE to actually collect that money in any way shape or form, that this story actually belongs in the "odd news" column but somebody in the editorial board has a hardon for some war porn and wants to remind everybody that Iran actually kinda sorta maybe if you really think about it had something to do with 9/11.

Fail lawsuit is fail.

 

[repoman]

Yeah, but can't the Jew run banks freeze assets outside of Iran?

Not using "Jew run" ironically or sarcastically.



This is the Judge...

Retarded and/or corrupt.

 

[barbos]

I honestly don't get that. Iran is responsible fro 9-11? how?
That after the same court "determined" that Saudi Arabia is not responsible?
Do these people have any sense of reality?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The case is In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

The citation doesn't show up on Westlaw or Lexisnexis so it hasn't been published yet (or it's a bad citation). The reason I mention that is because we don't know why the court ruled the way it did. It does seem peculiar, but we have to wait until the opinion is published to gain a better understanding.

 

[Axulus]

The case is In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

The citation doesn't show up on Westlaw or Lexisnexis so it hasn't been published yet (or it's a bad citation). The reason I mention that is because we don't know why the court ruled the way it did. It does seem peculiar, but we have to wait until the opinion is published to gain a better understanding.

The main reasoning seems to be that Iran failed to provide any response to the lawsuit, so a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff was awarded, likely because there was not prima facie evidence that the claims were untrue. Presumably, Iran could appeal if it wants.

 

[Axulus]

I honestly don't get that. Iran is responsible fro 9-11? how?
That after the same court "determined" that Saudi Arabia is not responsible?
Do these people have any sense of reality?

It didn't determine that Iran was responsible. It gave a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff because Iran provided no response to the claims made that it was responsible in some fashion.

Do we know that a similar lawsuit was not brought up against Saudi Arabia? Perhaps they provided a vigorous defense to any claims against them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The citation doesn't show up on Westlaw or Lexisnexis so it hasn't been published yet (or it's a bad citation). The reason I mention that is because we don't know why the court ruled the way it did. It does seem peculiar, but we have to wait until the opinion is published to gain a better understanding.

The main reasoning seems to be that Iran failed to provide any response to the lawsuit, so a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff was awarded, likely because there was not prima facie evidence that the claims were untrue. Presumably, Iran could appeal if it wants.

Or if they knew of the existence of the lawsuit in the first place (kind of unlikely).

Or if they were allowed to send a representative to actually present a defense (also kind of unlikely).

Or if they were under the opinion that these kinds of court cases are only valid when decided in international court, that a local district court doesn't actually have jurisdiction to sue a foreign country on its own (very likely).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iran Told to Pay $10.5 Billion to Sept. 11 Kin, Insurers

Bolded part: I see what you did there. Deliberately understating the fact that it is BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE to actually collect that money in any way shape or form, that this story actually belongs in the "odd news" column but somebody in the editorial board has a hardon for some war porn and wants to remind everybody that Iran actually kinda sorta maybe if you really think about it had something to do with 9/11.

Fail lawsuit is fail.

If there are any Iranian assets in a location they can get to they might actually collect. I recall a case from long ago where someone won a $20k judgment against Russia because they had been stiffed on a printing bill. Unenforceable? Oops, an Aerofloat plane arrived. They very promptly had their $20k.

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly don't get that. Iran is responsible fro 9-11? how?
That after the same court "determined" that Saudi Arabia is not responsible?
Do these people have any sense of reality?

Note that it was a default judgment--Iran didn't try to rebut the claim. So long as they had any evidence at all they would win in that case.

- - - Updated - - -

The citation doesn't show up on Westlaw or Lexisnexis so it hasn't been published yet (or it's a bad citation). The reason I mention that is because we don't know why the court ruled the way it did. It does seem peculiar, but we have to wait until the opinion is published to gain a better understanding.

The main reasoning seems to be that Iran failed to provide any response to the lawsuit, so a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff was awarded, likely because there was not prima facie evidence that the claims were untrue. Presumably, Iran could appeal if it wants.

You don't get to appeal a default judgement, do you? You can contest it on improper service but AFIAK that's all.

 

[barbos]

Was Iran even notified that they were being sued?
And how can we be sure the judge did not send it to Iraq? it's only one letter difference.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Was Iran even notified that they were being sued?
And how can we be sure the judge did not send it to Iraq? it's only one letter difference.

You're expected to show proof of service.

As for Iran and Iraq being one letter different:

1) You serve a person at an address, not a country.

2) I strongly suspect in such cases you serve the embassy in your own country anyway.