govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_21-cv-02160-2

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
   
JORDAN DEULEY, et al.,  
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
  
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,  
  
Defendant. 
 
 
 
Case No. 21-cv-2160-JMC-MAU 
 
 
  
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Plaintiffs Jordan Deuley, Justin Deuley, Michelle Deuley, Kathy Gibson, William Gibson, 
Angela Jaeger, Ryan Kringle, Jay Murray, and Preston Perkins are the victims and family members 
of victims of terrorist attacks that occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are part of a larger group 
of plaintiffs who originally filed this suit against Defendant the Islamic Republic of Iran for its 
state sponsorship of terrorism under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, seeking to bring 
claims for “personal injury or death that was caused by an act of . . . extrajudicial killing” or the 
“provision of material support or resources for such an act.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1). The 
remaining Plaintiffs have now moved the Court for a default judgment. ECF 38. The Court referred 
this matter to Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, who issued a report and recommendation. 
ECF 40. Having reviewed Judge Upadhyaya’s thorough and thoughtful report and 
recommendation, and given the lack of any objections, the Court fully agrees with the analysis and 
conclusions reached in the report. The Court will adopt the report and recommendation in its 
entirety and GRANT Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment.1 ECF 38.  
 
1 Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of citations has been modified throughout this opinion, for example, by 
omitting internal quotation marks, emphases, citations, and alterations and by altering capitalization. All pincites to 
 
Case 1:21-cv-02160-JMC-MAU     Document 42     Filed 05/04/26     Page 1 of 5
 
2 
 
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), the Court may enter default judgment 
against an absent respondent when a petitioner applies for it. But “the entry of a default judgment 
is not automatic,” Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2005), particularly when the 
defaulting party is a foreign sovereign. Such cases are governed by the Foreign Sovereign 
Immunities Act (FSIA), which “affords the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state 
in United States courts.” Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2015); 
see 28 U.S.C. § 1604. Under the FSIA, foreign sovereigns are presumptively immune from suit 
unless certain statutory exceptions apply. Mohammadi, 782 F.3d at 13–14; 28 U.S.C §§ 1604, 
1605–07. Accordingly, before entering a default judgment against a foreign state, the Court must 
satisfy itself that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims (in other words, that a statutory 
exception to immunity applies) and personal jurisdiction over the respondent. See, e.g., Sterling 
Merch. Fin. Ltd. v. Republic of Cabo Verde, 261 F. Supp. 3d 48, 50 (D.D.C. 2017). Even after 
confirming its jurisdiction, a court cannot enter a default judgment against a foreign state unless 
the petitioner presents “a legally sufficient prima facie case, in other words, a legally sufficient 
evidentiary basis for a reasonable [fact finder] to find for the plaintiff.” Kilburn v. Islamic Republic 
of Iran, 699 F. Supp. 2d 136, 150 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. 
Supp. 2d 53, 63 (D.D.C. 2008), aff’d, 646 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). The “satisfactory” evidence 
standard “can be met through uncontroverted factual allegations supported by documentary and 
affidavit evidence.” Ewan v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 3d 236, 244 (D.D.C. 2020).  
After the Islamic Republic of Iran failed to respond to the complaint, the Clerk of the Court 
entered a default on November 9, 2023. ECF 15. After some Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their 
claims, a group of remaining Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment on January 31, 2025. 
 
documents filed on the docket in this case are to the automatically generated ECF Page ID number that appears at the 
top of each page.  
Case 1:21-cv-02160-JMC-MAU     Document 42     Filed 05/04/26     Page 2 of 5
 
3 
 
ECF 30. The Court referred the motion to a magistrate judge to issue a report and recommendation, 
Feb. 4, 2025 Min. Order, and Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya was randomly assigned to the 
case, Feb. 4, 2025 Min. Entry. Judge Upadhyaya issued her first report and recommendation on 
September 19, 2025, which the Court adopted. ECF 36; ECF 37. The first report recommended 
that the motion for default judgment, ECF 30, be denied without prejudice because Plaintiffs 
“request[ed] leave to file supplemental expert reports and to make amended arguments in support 
of their [m]otion.” ECF 36 at 1. The Court adopted that recommendation and set a briefing 
schedule for the amended motion. ECF 37.  
Plaintiffs filed their amended motion for default judgment on October 17, 2025. The Court 
again referred the case to Judge Upadhyaya. Oct. 21, 2025 Min. Order. Judge Upadhyaya issued 
her second report and recommendation on March 24, 2026. ECF 40. Plaintiffs filed their notice of 
non-objection to the report and recommendation on April 9, 2026. ECF 41. In her second report 
and recommendation, Judge Upadhyaya recommended that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ amended 
motion for default judgment. ECF 40 at 1. She concluded that Plaintiffs had met the three required 
elements for default judgment in an FSIA case by showing that (1) the Court had subject matter 
jurisdiction over their claims, (2) the Court had personal jurisdiction over Iran, and (3) there was 
sufficient evidence to establish their claims against Iran.  
Judge Upadhyaya began by addressing Plaintiffs’ evidentiary requests, including 
qualifying their experts and refusing to take judicial notice of certain reports and testimony 
submitted in prior FSIA cases. ECF 40 at 4–7. Judge Upadhyaya then made findings of fact about 
Iran’s material support for terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. Id. at 7–12. The report analyzed the 
specific attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq that gave rise to this suit: (1) the August 29, 2004, Kabul 
Case 1:21-cv-02160-JMC-MAU     Document 42     Filed 05/04/26     Page 3 of 5
 
4 
 
attack that killed John A. Deuley and Gerald “Jerry” W. Gibson2; (2) the December 15, 2006, 
Mehtar Lam attack that severely injured Plaintiff Jay Murray; (3) the December 23, 2004, Fallujah 
attack that severely injured Plaintiff Ryan Kringle; and (4) the November 16, 2005, Haditha attack 
that severely injured Plaintiff Preston Cody Perkins. 
Turning to jurisdiction, Judge Upadhyaya found that the Court had subject matter 
jurisdiction over this suit because Plaintiffs established that they met the requisite elements to 
invoke the FSIA’s terrorism exception. ECF 40 at 16–17. Plaintiffs sought “money damages 
against Iran . . . for deaths or injuries that Plaintiffs sustained in four terrorist attacks” and “an 
extrajudicial killing occurred in each of” the attacks at issue. Id. at 17 (citing 28 U.S.C. 
§§ 1605A(a)(1), (h)(7)). Iran’s Supreme Leader and Quds Force provided material support for 
these attacks and Iran is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the Secretary of State. Id. at 
18. Plaintiffs also qualify as claimants or victims under the FSIA because they were U.S. nationals 
at the time of the attacks. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii)). Judge Upadhyaya also 
concluded that Plaintiffs had established the required element of causation because Iran’s material 
support to terrorist groups was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ personal injuries or family 
members’ deaths. Id. at 18–26. Next, Judge Upadhyaya concluded that the Court also had personal 
jurisdiction over Iran because, under the FSIA, “subject matter jurisdiction plus service of process 
equals personal jurisdiction” and “Plaintiffs complied with the FSIA’s service of process rules and 
properly served Iran.” Id. at 26 (citing GSS Grp. Ltd v. Nat’l Port Auth., 680 F.3d 805, 811 (D.C. 
Cir. 2012)).  
Plaintiffs also demonstrated that they each had a private right of action to pursue their 
claims against Iran under the FSIA as U.S. citizens and that they had presented viable theories of 
 
2 Plaintiffs Michelle Deuley, Justin Deuley, Jordan Deuley, Kathy Gibson, William Gibson, and Angela Jaegar are 
the family members of John A. Deuley and Jerry Gibson. ECF 40 at 12–14.  
Case 1:21-cv-02160-JMC-MAU     Document 42     Filed 05/04/26     Page 4 of 5
 
5 
 
liability because they had “established that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism that caused the 
deaths or personal injuries of Plaintiffs by materially supporting terrorist groups in Afghanistan 
and Iraq.” Id. at 27. Judge Upadhyaya then found that (1) Plaintiffs Michelle Deuley, Justin 
Deuley, Jordan Deuley, Kathy Gibson, William Gibson, and Angela Jaeger were entitled to 
solatium damages for the loss of their loved ones, id. at 30–31; (2) Plaintiffs Ryan Kringle, Preston 
Cody Perkins, and Jay Murray were entitled to pain and suffering damages, id. at 32–33; and (3) 
all Plaintiffs were entitled to punitive damages and post-judgment interest, id. at 34–35.  
 Finally, Judge Upadhyaya’s report contained the requisite notice informing the parties of 
their right to file written objections to the report and recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 
72.3(b) and that any such objection must be filed within 14 days after its receipt. Id. at 36. Plaintiffs 
filed a notice stating that they had no objections to the report and recommendation. ECF 41. The 
Court fully agrees with the analysis and conclusions reached in the report and ADOPTS in full 
Judge Upadhyaya’s report and recommendation. ECF 40. Plaintiffs’ amended motion for default 
judgment is GRANTED. ECF 38. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.  
SO ORDERED.  
                 __________________________ 
       JIA M. COBB 
       United States District Judge 
 
Date: May 4, 2026 
 
Case 1:21-cv-02160-JMC-MAU     Document 42     Filed 05/04/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight