Bein v. Islamic Republic of Iran

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 19, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2021-2160
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW BEIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 21-cv-2160-JMC-MAU v.

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On February 4, 2025, the District Court referred Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment

(“Motion”) (ECF No. 30) to this Court for a Report and Recommendation. Min. Order (Feb. 4,

2025). Plaintiffs now request leave to file supplemental expert reports and to make amended

arguments in support of their Motion. (ECF No. 32). For the reasons stated in open court during

the Status Conference on September 18, 2025, this Court recommends that the District Court

DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion and GRANT Plaintiffs leave to file an

amended motion for default judgment on the following briefing schedule:

Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment: October 17, 2025

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion: November 17, 2025

Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant’s Response: November 21, 2025

Should the District Court adopt this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs have agreed

to attach redline versions of their memorandum of law and any amended expert reports to their

amended motion so that the Court might compare the amended motion to the original motion.

Plaintiffs waive any objections to this Report and Recommendation. Defendant was declared to

be in default on November 9, 2023. ECF No. 15. Date: September 19, 2025

____________________________________ MOXILA A. UPADHYAYA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE REVIEW BY THE DISTRICT COURT

The Parties are hereby advised that under Local Civil Rule 72.3(b), any party who objects

to the proposed findings or recommendations herein must file written objections within fourteen

days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. Objections must specifically

identify the portion of the recommendation to which the objection pertains and the basis for the

objection. The Parties are further advised that they may waive their right of appeal from an order

of the District Court adopting such findings and recommendations if the Parties fail to file timely

objections to the findings and recommendation set forth in this Report and Recommendation. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).

***