THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN DOE, aka ...

25 Pages·2014·0.25 MB·English

by  Juliana Laurello

Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 2
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
JOHN DOE, a.k.a. KIDANE )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00372-CKK
v.
)
FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC )
REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA )
)
Defendant.
)
)

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendant Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (“Ethiopia”) hereby moves this Court to
dismiss Plaintiff John Doe, a.k.a. Kidane’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint (Docket No. 3). As set forth
in the accompanying Memorandum, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Ethiopia
is a foreign sovereign, which, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), is immune
from suit, unless Plaintiff can demonstrate that the suit falls within a specified statutory
exception to immunity. Here, the sole exception – the “tort” exception – on which Plaintiff
relies, does not apply. Accordingly, Ethiopia retains its immunity and this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff also has failed to state a legally-cognizable claim and, therefore, his complaint is
also subject to dismissal under Federal Rule 12(b)(6).
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 2
WHEREFORE, for these reasons, as well as those set forth in the accompanying
memorandum, Ethiopia respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.1

Dated: June 27, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert P. Charrow
Robert P. Charrow (DC 261958)
Thomas R. Snider (DC 477661)
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20037
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]

Counsel for Defendant Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia

1 By filing this motion, accompanying memorandum, and proposed order, Ethiopia is not
waiving its sovereign immunity.
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 22
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
JOHN DOE, a.k.a. KIDANE )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00372-CKK
v.
)
FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC, )
REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA )
)
Defendant.
)
)

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

Robert P. Charrow (DC 261958)
Thomas R. Snider (DC 477661)
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20037
Tele: 202-533-2396; Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]

Counsel for Defendant Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. .............................................................1
SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT. .............................................................................................4
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5
I. ETHIOPIA, AS A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN, IS PRESUMPTIVELY IMMUNE FROM
SUIT .....................................................................................................................................5

II. THE TORT EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE
COMPLAINT ......................................................................................................................6

A. The Tort Exception Does Not Apply Where, As Here, the Entirety of the Alleged
Tort was not Committed in the United States. .........................................................6

B. The Tort Exception Does Not Apply to the Discretionary Functions Alleged in
this Complaint ..........................................................................................................8

C. The Tort Exception Does Not Apply to Statutory Damages or to Injuries for
Annoyance, as Alleged in this Complaint..............................................................10

D. The Torts Exception Does not Apply to Either Violations of the Wiretap Act or
Common Law “Intrusion Upon Seclusion” ...........................................................11

1. Pleadings Do Not Allege a Violation of the Wiretap Act. ......................11

a. The Interception Provision of the Wiretap Act Does Not Apply
to Sovereigns. ..............................................................................11

b. Complaint Fails to Allege a Necessary “Interception” to Support
a Wiretap Act Claim. ..................................................................13

2. Common Law Torts, Such as Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Are Expressly
Preempted by the Wiretap Act ................................................................14

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................15

i
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 06/27/14 Page 3 of 22
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,
488 U. S. 428 (1989)... ...............................................................................................................5,6,7

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................................................11

Asociacion de Reclamantes v. United Mexican States,
735 F.2d 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1984). ...................................................................................................5,6

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007) .......................................................................................................................11

Brzak v. United Nations,
597 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2010).............................................................................................................2

Bruce v. Consulate of Venezuela,
No. 04-933 (RWR) (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2005)..................................................................................10

Bunnell v. Motion Picture Ass’n of America,
567 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .........................................................................................14

Burnett v. Al Baraka Invest. and Dev. Corp.,
292 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 2003). ......................................................................................................9

Cargill Int’l S.A. v. M/T Pavel Dybenko,
991 F.2d 1012 (2d Cir. 1993)...........................................................................................................5

City of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon,
560 U.S. 746 (2010) .......................................................................................................................14

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
461 U.S. 95 (1983) .........................................................................................................................15

Dalehite v. United States,
346 U.S. 15 (1953) ...........................................................................................................................8

De Sanchez v. Banco Central De Nicaragua,
770 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir. 1985). ........................................................................................................8

Doe v. Chao,
540. U.S. 614 (2004).. ....................................................................................................................10

ii
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 06/27/14 Page 4 of 22
F.A.A. v. Cooper,
566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1441 (2012). ...........................................................................................11

Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003)...........................................................................................................13

Jerez v. Republic of Cuba,
777 F.Supp.2d 6 (D.D.C. 2011). ......................................................................................................6

Jin v. Ministry of State Security,
475 F.Supp.2d 54 (D.D.C. 2007). ....................................................................................................9

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,
___U.S.___, 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) ................................................................................................7

Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines,
302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002). ........................................................................................................13

Lane v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.,
612 F. Supp. 2d 623 (E.D. Pa. 2009). ............................................................................................15

Lane v. Pena,
518 U.S. 187 (1996) .......................................................................................................................10

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555 (1992) .......................................................................................................................15

MacArthur Area Citizens Ass'n v. Republic of Peru,
809 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1987). ........................................................................................................9

O’Bryan v. Holy See,
556 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2009). ..........................................................................................................6

Persinger v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
729 F.28 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................................2,6

Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angola,
216 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2000). ..........................................................................................................5

Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
294 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002). ........................................................................................................12

Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc.,
445 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2006) .........................................................................................14

iii
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 06/27/14 Page 5 of 22
Risk v. Halvorsen,
936 F.2d 393 (9th Cir. 1991). ........................................................................................................10

Sheldon ex rel. Olsen v. Government of Mexico,
729 F.2d 641 (9th Cir.). ...................................................................................................................8

State v. Williams,
94 Wash. 2d 531 (1980). ................................................................................................................15

Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Serv.,
36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994) ...........................................................................................................13

Theofel v. Farey–Jones,
359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). ......................................................................................................13

United States v. Councilman,
418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005). ...........................................................................................................14

United States v. Gaubert,
499 U.S. 315, 322 (1991) .................................................................................................................9

United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines),
467 U.S. 797 (1984) .........................................................................................................................8

United States v. Steiger,
318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir.). ........................................................................................................13,14

Valentine v. NebuAd, Inc.,
804 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2011). ........................................................................................15

Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria,
461 U. S. 480 (1983) ........................................................................................................................5

Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens,
529 U.S. 765 (2000) .......................................................................................................................12

Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
736 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1990). .........................................................................................................6

Wye Oak Tech., Inc. v. Republic of Iraq,
941 F.Supp.2d 53 (D.D.C. 2013) .....................................................................................................2

Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 2510. ......................................................................................................................12,13

iv
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 06/27/14 Page 6 of 22
18 U.S.C. § 2511. ...........................................................................................................................12

18 U.S.C. § 2517. ...........................................................................................................................12

18 U.S.C. § 2518. ........................................................................................................................4,14

18 U.S.C. § 2520(a). ......................................................................................................................12

28 U.S.C. § 1330 ...............................................................................................................2,3,6,8,12

28 U.S.C. § 1331. .............................................................................................................................2

28 U.S.C. § 1367. .............................................................................................................................2

28 U.S.C. § 1604. ..........................................................................................................................3,5

28 U.S.C. § 1605(a) ..........................................................................................................2,3,6,7,8,9

28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) .........................................................................................................................8

Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)...............................................................................................................2,13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)..................................................................................................................12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)...............................................................................................................4,13

Other Authorities
Press Release, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Sues Ethiopian Government for
Spyware Infection (Feb. 18, 2004). .................................................................................................2

Cecilia Kang, Fans know the score: No TVs needed,
The Washington Post, June 16, 2014. ..............................................................................................1

Joseph Dellapenna, Suing Foreign Governments and Their Corporations,
1st ed., The Bureau of National Affairs: Washington, D.C. (1988). ................................................5

Stefan Saroiu, Steven D. Gribble, and Henry M. Levy, Measurement and Analysis of Spyware in
a University Environment, 1 Networked Sys. Design & Implementation (March 2004).. ..............1

S. Comm. Homeland Sec. and Governmental Aff. Permanent Subcomm. Investigations,
Report on Online Advertising and Hidden Hazards to Consumer Security and Data
Privacy (2014) ..................................................................................................................................1

v
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 06/27/14 Page 7 of 22
S. Rep. No. 94-938 (1976). ............................................................................................................10

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS (1977). ...................................................................................11

vi
Case 1:14-cv-00372-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 06/27/14 Page 8 of 22
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

Introduction & Summary of Argument:

Malware and spyware infect tens of millions of computers annually, and like the common
cold, they draw little distinction between the big and small, or the rich and poor; they infect a full
range of devices from mega-servers owned by giant corporations, such as Target, to personal
computers owned by individuals, such as Plaintiff, according to the allegations in the
Complaint.1 Rather than chalking up his computer virus to the work of criminals who are doing
it for profit or hackers who are doing it for sport, Plaintiff alleges instead that he is the victim of
a conspiracy to infect and control his personal computer in Silver Spring, Maryland, from
Ethiopia.
Plaintiff alleges that his computer in Maryland was hacked with software purchased
abroad from a European company, that some of this software made its way into his computer
through another computer that used an Ethiopian routing address, and, from this, he infers that
the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (“Ethiopia”) “controlled” the software and was
responsible for its remote installation. These inferences cannot be justified as a matter of simple
logic, given that computer addresses can be and are easily faked. See Cecilia Kang, Fans know
the score: No TVs needed, WASH. POST, June 16, 2014, at A-1 (discussing how soccer fans use
IP addresses from the UK to stream World Cup games for free, thereby avoiding pay-for-view
cable). The anonymous Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of this computer virus, he has

1 See S. Comm. Homeland Sec. and Governmental Aff. Permanent Subcomm.
Investigations, 113th Cong., Rep. on Online Advertising And Hidden Hazards To Consumer
Security And Data Privacy (2014), available at http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/online-
advertising-and-hidden-hazards-to-consumer-security-and-data-privacy; Stefan Saroiu, Steven D.
Gribble, and Henry M. Levy, Measurement and Analysis of Spyware in a University
Environment, 1 NETWORKED SYS. DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION (Mar. 2004).
1