LA County judge grants motion to apply Iranian law in personal injury case

In a departure from prior court rulings, a Los Angeles County judge granted motions to apply Iranian law in a personal injury case going to trial next month involving a former Iranian citizen alleging he suffered asbestos exposure while working at oil refineries in Iran during the 1960s.

Superior Court Judge John J. Kralik noted that while he was aware his ruling differed from other judges who seemed concerned with religious influence inherent in Iranian law, the provisions in question in this case appeared well-established, civil, and secular in nature.

"All laws of civil redress have root in some religious tradition, and these laws do not radically or offensively differ from traditions in the law of the various United States," he added.

The Oct. 24 ruling came after one of the defendants, Foster Wheeler LLC, represented by attorney James Parker of Hugo Parker LLP, filed two motions to apply Iranian law to determine damages.

Parker said Kralik was the first trial judge he knew of to allow Iranian law to be applied. Houshang Sabetian et al., v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. et al., BC699945 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed March 28, 2018)

In Kralik's ruling, he cited a case in which the trial court applied Oklahoma law to a California resident suing a New York manufacturer for injuries caused by alleged exposure from asbestos-containing products in Oklahoma. McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2010) 48 Cal.4th 68.

Kralik granted the application of Iranian law on the issues of punitive damages, strict liability, and joint and several liability, but denied its application to negligence standard of care, the monetary limit on general damages, and prohibition on loss of consortium damages.

The plaintiff's attorney, Benno Behnam Ashrafi of Weitz & Luxenberg PC, declined to comment on the pending case,

The case is set for jury trial on Dec. 10.

Eugene Volokh, who teaches religious freedom law and church-state relations law, among other subjects at UCLA School of Law, said Kralik was correct in his ruling.

"If you look at the specific situation where there is an injury in a foreign country to a citizen of that country, generally speaking, American courts will apply the law of that country. The same is true of states of the union," Volokh said.

"The fact he happened to move to America after he suffered the injury, shouldn't affect what law to apply," he added.

In a similar case in 2014, also involving Foster Wheeler, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias denied a request to apply Iranian law in an asbestos wrongful death action.

Elias reasoned that the application of Iranian law would not be permissible because, "Iranian law partly incorporates Islamic law, California courts may not apply it," and because "Iran is run by mullahs and lacks an independent judiciary and due process of law." Samad Sarooie et al., v. Asbestos Corporation Limited et al., BC529503 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 4, 2013).

After Elias denied the application of Iranian law, Volokh filed an amicus brief to the Court of Appeal, arguing that, "if a foreign rule is seen as improperly discriminatory based on sex or religion, courts can refuse to apply it, or even to enforce a judgment based on that rule...But there is no reason to think that the Iranian rules that would be applied in this case would violate any such specific California public policies."

Although the judges differed in their rulings, both Kralik and Elias acknowledged that this is a "controlling question of law as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, appellate resolution of which may materially advance the conclusion of the litigation."

Kralik wrote that he considers the question of whether to apply Iranian law in California separate from whether the plaintiff has a legal remedy in Iran.