A District Court in Washington, D.C., has issued a ruling in the case of the Estate of Carmen E. Crespo v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Civil Action No. 2022-1514. The court addressed several procedural issues related to a lawsuit claiming that North Korea supported a terrorist attack at Lod Airport in Israel in 1972. The decision affects U.S. citizens and their families who were victims of the attack.
The court's ruling is significant because it allows the plaintiffs to move forward with their claims against North Korea, which is currently in default. The plaintiffs are seeking justice for the deaths and injuries caused by the attack, which killed 26 people and injured 80 others. The court's decision will help determine how the case will proceed and what steps the plaintiffs must take to represent deceased claimants.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case include U.S. citizens who were killed or injured during the Lod Airport attack, as well as their immediate family members and representatives of deceased claimants. The attack, carried out by the Japanese Red Army, involved gunfire and grenades aimed at travelers. The plaintiffs allege that North Korea provided material support to the attackers, which forms the basis of their claims against the country.
The lawsuit was filed in 2022, and the plaintiffs served North Korea through diplomatic channels in February 2024. Since North Korea did not respond to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought a default judgment. They also requested the court to address various procedural matters to facilitate their case, leading to the recent court ruling.
The Ruling
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the court's opinion on July 22, 2026. The court granted some of the plaintiffs' requests while denying others. The court ruled to bifurcate the proceedings into two phases: one for liability and another for damages. This means that the court will first determine if North Korea is liable for the attack before addressing how much compensation the plaintiffs should receive.
The court stated, "The Court shall bifurcate proceedings on liability and damages into separate phases." This approach is intended to streamline the process and focus on whether North Korea provided support for the terrorist acts.
Additionally, the court allowed the plaintiffs to propose a Second Amended Complaint, which will help clarify who is representing the deceased claimants. However, the court denied the plaintiffs' request to establish their authority to represent these estates without satisfying certain legal requirements under D.C. law.
Impact
The court's ruling has significant implications for the plaintiffs and their pursuit of justice. By bifurcating the proceedings, the court aims to expedite the resolution of liability before delving into the complex issue of damages. This decision is consistent with practices in similar cases involving foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
The requirement for the plaintiffs to establish their authority to represent deceased claimants under D.C. law adds an additional layer of complexity to the case. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to local legal standards when pursuing claims on behalf of estates. This ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly those involving foreign states and claims of terrorism.
What's Next
The plaintiffs can appeal certain aspects of the ruling if they choose. They are expected to file a Second Amended Complaint by August 31, 2026, to clarify their representation of deceased claimants. The case will continue to develop as the court addresses the procedural requirements and ultimately determines liability and damages.