Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Axell v. United States, 253 F.3d 755, 1st Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States was granted summary judgment and dismissed from the lawsuit. The court held that the claims against the United States were barred by immunity under the Status of Forces Agreement between the UN and Haiti (U.N.-Haiti SOFA). The U.N.-Haiti SOFA extends the UN's absolute immunity to the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti (UNMIH) and to participating states like the U.S. that contribute personnel. The actions of the U.S. military officers involved in responding to the dispute fell within the scope of the UNMIH mandate and were covered by UN immunity.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Axell v. United States, 253 F.3d 755, 1st Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views4 pages
    The United States was granted summary judgment and dismissed from the lawsuit. The court held that the claims against the United States were barred by immunity under the Status of Forces Agreement between the UN and Haiti (U.N.-Haiti SOFA). The U.N.-Haiti SOFA extends the UN's absolute immunity to the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti (UNMIH) and to participating states like the U.S. that contribute personnel. The actions of the U.S. military officers involved in responding to the dispute fell within the scope of the UNMIH mandate and were covered by UN immunity.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-06-11 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 253 F.3d 755 Docket: 00-1618

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States was granted summary judgment and dismissed from the lawsuit. The court held that the claims against the United States were barred by immunity under the Status of Forces Agreement between the UN and Haiti (U.N.-Haiti SOFA). The U.N.-Haiti SOFA extends the UN's absolute immunity to the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti (UNMIH) and to participating states like the U.S. that contribute personnel. The actions of the U.S. military officers involved in responding to the dispute fell within the scope of the UNMIH mandate and were covered by UN immunity.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    26 views4 pages

    Axell v. United States, 253 F.3d 755, 1st Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States was granted summary judgment and dismissed from the lawsuit. The court held that the claims against the United States were barred by immunity under the Status of Forces Agreement between the UN and Haiti (U.N.-Haiti SOFA). The U.N.-Haiti SOFA extends the UN's absolute immunity to the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti (UNMIH) and to participating states like the U.S. that contribute personnel. The actions of the U.S. military officers involved in responding to the dispute fell within the scope of the UNMIH mandate and were covered by UN immunity.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    253 F.3d 755 (1st Cir.

    2001)

    AXELL AND LUCREZIA EMMANUEL, Plaintiffs,


    Appellants,
    v.
    THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND HANS
    ISBRANDTSEN, Defendants, Appellees.
    No. 00-1618

    United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit


    Heard December 4, 2000
    Decided June 11, 2001

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE


    DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
    Stephen B. Hrones, with whom Hrones & Garrity was on brief, for
    appellants.
    Mark B. Stern, with whom David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General,
    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Alisa B. Klein were on
    brief, for appellees.
    Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
    TORRUELLA, Chief Judge.

    Appellants Axell and Lucrezia Emmanuel appeal a district court decision


    granting the United States summary judgment on all counts. We affirm.

    BACKGROUND
    2

    While the Emmanuels contend that many of the underlying facts remain in
    dispute, the following bare-bones version of events is uncontested. Axell and
    Lucrezia Emmanuel, a married couple, had chartered a ship from Hans
    Isbrandtsen for the business purpose of transporting cars from Boston,

    Massachusetts to Haiti. In December 1995, they arrived in St. Marc, Haiti on


    said ship with vehicles for unloading. A dispute arose between the Emmanuels
    and Isbrandtsen which prompted Isbrandtsen to contact the United States
    embassy, report his concern for the safety of the ship's crew, and request
    assistance.
    3

    An embassy official then contacted the United Nations Mission in Haiti


    ("UNMIH"). Major Roy Thomas (a Canadian military officer) of the UNMIH
    sent a United Nations military unit commanded by Captain Garth Estadt, a U.S.
    Army officer, to the scene to investigate the disturbance. Once there, a physical
    confrontation between Lucrezia Emmanuel and Master Sergeant Francis
    Norbury occurred, resulting in injuries to both of them. The Emmanuels
    brought this suit in federal court in Massachusetts against Isbrandtsen and the
    United States. Their claims against the United States, which are the only
    relevant ones for purposes of this appeal, allege negligence and tortious acts of
    United States agents resulting in personal and financial injury.

    The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States and
    ordered all claims against the United States to be dismissed. Emmanuel v.
    United States, Civ. No. 97-12787-RWZ (D. Mass. May 6, 2000) (Mem. of
    Decision). The court held that the Emmanuels' claims were barred due to the
    immunity afforded the United States under the Status of Forces Agreement
    between the United Nations and Haiti.1

    DISCUSSION
    5

    As explained by the district court, the UNMIH assumed full responsibility for
    United Nations peacekeeping operations in Haiti in 1994. In order to effectuate
    this goal, the United Nations and Haiti executed a Status of Forces Agreement
    ("U.N.-Haiti SOFA"), formally known as the "Agreement Between the United
    Nations and the Government of Haiti on the Status of the United Nations
    Mission in Haiti." The U.N.-Haiti SOFA extends the immunity enjoyed by the
    United Nations2 to the UNMIH, as well as "to the property, funds and assets of
    participating States used in connection with the UNMIH." U.N.-Haiti SOFA,
    4. The United States is a "participating state"3 and, accordingly, entitled to
    immunity from claims arising from UNMIH conduct.

    The Emmanuels attempt to dodge this immunity by claiming that: (1) the U.N.Haiti SOFA does not apply to them, as an agreement exclusively between the
    government of Haiti and the United Nations; and (2) the dispatch of a United
    Nations unit to the scene of the dispute between the Emmanuels and
    Isbrandtsen was an action outside the scope of the UNMIH mandate, and not

    entitled to United Nations immunity. Both assertions are easily rebutted.


    7

    The language of the U.N.-Haiti SOFA demonstrates that the agreement covers
    claims such as the one brought by the Emmanuels: Except as provided in
    paragraph 52, any dispute or claim of a private law character to which UNMIH
    or any member thereof is a party and over which the courts of Haiti do not have
    jurisdiction because of any provision of the present Agreement, shall be settled
    by a standing claims commission to be established for that purpose.

    U.N.-Haiti SOFA, 50 (emphasis added).4 The agreement, in referencing "any


    dispute or claim of a private law character" without mentioning the government
    of Haiti, dispels any argument that the U.N.-Haiti SOFA applies only to Haiti
    and the UNMIH and not to individuals in Haiti. In addition, the absolute
    immunity enjoyed by the United Nations and extended unequivocally to the
    UNMIH covers all suits brought by any party, including private individuals like
    the Emmanuels. See Askir v. Boutros-Ghali, 933 F. Supp. 368, 368-371
    (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Op. and Order) (finding that the United Nations enjoyed
    immunity against damages suit brought by a Somali citizen). The argument,
    then, that the U.N.-Haiti SOFA does not apply to the Emmanuels is meritless.

    The second argument, that the particular actions taken here were outside the
    scope of the UNMIH mandate and not entitled to United Nations immunity, is
    equally unavailing. The Emmanuels claim that their dispute with Isbrandtsen
    was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Haitian Port Authority. The district
    court disagreed, concluding from affidavits submitted by the United States that
    "the UNMIH routinely dispatched troops to respond to reported civil
    disturbances because of the lack of trained Haitian police." Emmanuel, Civ.
    No. 97-12787-RWZ, at 5. The district court went on, holding that, regardless of
    the propriety of the intervention by the UNMIH unit, the order to investigate
    "came from the U.N. through its chain of command." Id. The military personnel
    that were involved in the altercation were accordingly "acting in connection
    with the U.N. mission." Id.; see Askir, 933 F. Supp. at 370 n.3 ("The mere
    allegation that the United Nations did not possess the authority to undertake its
    mission in Somalia does not make whatever actions Connor may have taken to
    carry out those missions any less a part of his official function."). We find the
    reasoning of the district court to be unassailable, and adopt the district court's
    opinion regarding this issue in full.

    CONCLUSION
    10

    The district court decision granting summary judgment and dismissing the
    United States from this suit is affirmed.

    Notes:
    1

    The district court also dismissed the Emmanuels' Federal Tort Claims Act
    claims that were based on negligence of United States embassy personnel,
    finding that any acts or omissions attributed to U.S. embassy personnel were not
    the proximate cause of any harm that came to the Emmanuels. The Emmanuels
    have not appealed the dismissal of their FTCA claims.

    United Nations immunity is absolute unless expressly waived. United Nations


    Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Feb. 13, 1946,
    art. II, 2, 21 U.S.T. 1418, 1422, T.I.A.S. 6900, acceded to by the United
    States in 1970. See Askir v. Boutros-Ghali, 933 F. Supp. 368, 371 (S.D.N.Y.
    1996) (Op. and Order).

    "'Participating State' means a State contributing personnel to the


    aforementioned components of UNMIH." U.N.-Haiti SOFA, 1(d). It is
    undisputed that the United States contributes such personnel.

    Paragraph 52 does not apply to this case, covering only disputes "between
    UNMIH and the Government [of Haiti]." U.N.-Haiti SOFA, 52.

    You might also like