Mueller v. Syrian Arab Republic

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 2, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2018-1229
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RICHARD CARL MUELLER, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-01229 (CJN)

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c). ECF No.

49 (Mot.). Plaintiffs request an order authorizing enforcement of the final judgment in the amount

of $414,256,561.86, ECF No. 40, which was served on Defendant through diplomatic channels on

September 24, 2024, ECF No. 47. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion.

I. Background

Kayla Mueller, an American humanitarian aid worker, was kidnapped, tortured, and

executed by ISIS. ECF No. 33 (Jan. 2023 Mem. Op.) at 1. Claiming that the Syrian Arab Republic

was responsible for Kayla’s injuries and death, Kayla’s mother, father, brother, and estate

(together, the Muellers) sued Syria under the state-sponsored terrorism exception of the Foreign

Sovereign Immunities Act. Id.; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq. Syria failed to appear and the

Muellers moved for default judgment as to liability. ECF No. 28. The Court granted the motion

in part on April 11, 2023. ECF No. 34 (April 2023 Mem. Op.). Specifically, the Court found

Syria liable for counts one through five of the Muellers’ complaint: wrongful death, assault,

battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 2–5; see also

ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 49–62.

1 The Court then appointed a Special Master to evaluate the Muellers’ damages claims and

to file a report and recommendation with the Court. ECF No. 37 at 1. The Special Master filed

its report on June 7, 2024. ECF No. 38. Upon consideration of that report and the Muellers’

motion to adopt its findings, the Court entered final judgment on June 25, 2024, awarding the

Muellers $138,085,520.62 in compensatory damages and $276,171,041.24 in punitive damages,

for a total award of $414,256,561.86, to be distributed as follows:

Plaintiff Pain and Solatium Economic Punitive Suffering

Estate of Kayla $107,244,767.89 $1,173,301.30 $216,836,138.38 Mueller

Marsha Mueller $12,276,186.80 $24,552,373.60

Carl Mueller $12,276,186.80 $24,552,373.60

Eric Mueller $5,115,077.83 $10,230,155.66

ECF No. 40 (Final Judgment) at 1.

The Court further ordered that Syria would be liable for the entire $414,256,561.86, and

that the Muellers should “forthwith, at their own expense and consistent with the requirements of

28 U.S.C. § 1608(e), send a copy of this Order and Judgment this date to defendant.” Id. at 2. the

Muellers served copies of the judgment and related papers together with a translation of each

through the Clerk of the Court and by State Department delivery to the Syrian Ministry of Foreign

Affairs on September 24, 2024. See ECF Nos. 41–44, 47. Since that service, over 14 months have

passed without payment or response by Syria. Believing that a “reasonable period of time” has

thus elapsed since “the receipt of notice by a foreign sovereign” of the judgment against it, the

2 Muellers request that the Court authorize post-judgment enforcement against Syria pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1610(c). Mot. at 2–4.

II. Analysis

Before a court can issue an order under § 1610(c), it must determine “that a reasonable

period of time has elapsed following the entry of judgment” and that “any notice required under

section 1608(e)” has been given. Both requirements are satisfied here.

Section 1610(c) provides no express guidance on how to assess whether a period is

“reasonable.” Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2015). Courts have

considered “the procedures necessary for the foreign state to pay the judgment (such as the passage

of legislation), evidence that the foreign state is actively taking steps to pay the judgment, and

evidence that the foreign state is attempting to evade payment of the judgment.” Ned Chartering

& Trading, Inc. v. Republic of Pakistan, 130 F. Supp. 2d 64, 67 (D.D.C.2001). Although the

necessary interim “will of course vary according to the nuances of each case,” id., courts have

found anywhere from six weeks to a year to be a reasonable time since entry of judgment. See id.

(six weeks); Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. S.S. Lash Pacifico, 652 F. Supp. 420, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

(three months); Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Fed’n, 798 F. Supp. 2d 260, 269

(D.D.C. 2011) (one year). Here, more than a year has passed since judgment was first entered in

the Muellers’ favor. “In the absence of any evidence that [a defendant is] making efforts to pay

[the judgment] voluntarily—and there is none here—the Court is inclined to find” that “a

reasonable period of time has elapsed.” Owens, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 9; 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c).

As to notice, the State Department reports that it delivered copies of all the relevant

documents to the Foreign Interests Section of the Embassy of the Czech Republic in Damascus,

which in turn delivered them to Syria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on September 24, 2024. ECF

3 No. 47 at 1. 1 Such service suffices to establish “the giving of any notice” required by §§ 1610(c)

and 1608(e). See Agudas Chasidei Chabad, 798 F. Supp. 2d at 269 (finding that a foreign

sovereign “ha[d] been properly served with [a] default judgment” after delivery by the State

Department).

Based on the representations in the Muellers’ Motion and the record, the Court finds that

the Muellers have given Syria proper notice of the Court’s Final Judgment and that a reasonable

period of time has elapsed since the entry of that judgment. The Court will therefore issue an order

under § 1610(c) authorizing the attachment and execution of the judgment. A separate Order will

issue contemporaneously.

DATE: December 2, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge

1 Those relevant documents were the Final Judgment, the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master Regarding Compensatory Damages, an unspecified Order, the Memorandum Opinions of January 31 and April 11, 2023, and a Notice of Default Judgment prepared by Plaintiffs. See ECF No. 47 at 1, 8.