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: 202-533-2396; Fax: 202-261-0164 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: 202-261-0164 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