Kurd v. Republic of Turk.

Summary

In this 2019 D.C. District Court decision, plaintiffs alleged that civilian defendants assaulted and battered Kurdish protesters during a 2017 protest against Turkish President Erdogan in Washington, D.C. The court held that plaintiffs stated valid claims for assault, aiding-and-abetting battery (recognizing D.C. law permits aiding-abetting liability for common law torts under *Halberstam v. Welch*), and hate crimes under D.C. Code § 22-3704, but dismissed conspiracy-to-commit-battery claims for lack of factual allegations of an agreement. The court also dismissed 42 U.S.C. § 1985 civil rights claims because no state action was alleged for the deprivation clause and plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights under the prevention clause.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that each defendant committed an intentional act that placed each plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. The court denied the motion to dismiss the assault claims.
2. Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that defendants aided and abetted battery by knowingly and substantially assisting in the attacks. The court denied the motion to dismiss battery claims on aiding and abetting theory.
3. Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to establish an agreement among defendants to commit battery. The court granted the motion to dismiss the conspiracy-based battery claims without prejudice.
4. All plaintiffs except Kheirabadi sufficiently alleged extreme and outrageous conduct, intentional acts, and severe emotional distress. Kheirabadi's claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege severe emotional distress.
5. Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that defendants committed a designated act (assault and aiding and abetting battery) with bias based on plaintiffs' Kurdish identity and anti-Erdogan political affiliation. The court denied the motion to dismiss.
6. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under § 1985. The deprivation clause requires state action, which was not alleged. Even assuming the prevention clause does not require state action, plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for assault against defendants E. Yildirim, Narin, and A. Dereci.
2. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for battery against defendants on theories of aiding and abetting and conspiracy.
3. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendants.
4. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for hate crimes under D.C. Code § 22-3704 against defendants.
5. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against defendants.

Disposition

other