Adamkavicius v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Civil Action No. 2023-3571
| D.D.C. | Jul 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (U.S. service members, contractors, and family members) sued the Islamic Republic of Iran under the FSIA §1605A terrorism exception for harms from 27 terrorist attacks in Afghanistan between 2006–2019. Iran did not appear and default proceedings followed.
- The court relied on and took judicial notice of detailed factual findings from prior litigation (Cabrera) establishing the existence and operation of a Taliban‑led syndicate (Taliban, Haqqani Network, Kabul Attack Network, al‑Qaeda) and Iran’s material support to that syndicate.
- The court found Iran provided material support by supplying weapons, training, funds (including bounties), safe haven, and facilitation of drug‑trafficking that sustained the syndicate’s operations across multiple Afghan regions.
- The Clerk effected service under FSIA §1608(a)(3) and, after diplomatic transmission via the State Department/Swiss Interests Section, §1608(a)(4) was satisfied despite Iran’s refusal to accept the papers; the court therefore exercised personal jurisdiction.
- Applying the FSIA terrorism exception, the court concluded plaintiffs established proximate causation between Iran’s material support and the attacks and found Iran liable for the 27 specified attacks.
- The court awarded solatium to 14 bellwether family plaintiffs (applying the district’s Peterson/Heiser framework with a 25% upward deviation for three minor children), prejudgment interest (prime‑rate method), and punitive damages equal to compensatory awards; remaining claims were referred to a Special Master.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction / service under FSIA §1608 | Service was properly effected via the Clerk and State Department under §1608(a)(3)/(a)(4); diplomatic transmission completed. | (No appearance) Potential defense would be improper service or lack of diplomatic transmission. | Service satisfied §1608(a)(4); personal jurisdiction over Iran established despite Iran’s refusal to accept delivery. |
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction / FSIA §1605A terrorism exception (liability) | Iran knowingly provided material support to the Taliban‑led syndicate (weapons, training, funds, safe haven, drug facilitation), satisfying the terrorism exception and proximate causation for each attack. | (No appearance) Likely would argue lack of causation, insufficient nexus between Iran and specific attacks, or entitlement to immunity. | Court held plaintiffs met §1605A: Iran’s material support—given form and effect—satisfied the statute and proximate causation standard; sovereign immunity waived. |
| Judicial notice / reliance on prior findings (Cabrera) | Court may take judicial notice of factual findings and evidence from related FSIA cases involving the same conduct and defendant to avoid duplicative proof. | (No appearance) Potential objection: collateral estoppel or inappropriate reliance on different record. | Court took judicial notice of Cabrera’s factual findings and evidence as instructive and admissible for adjudicating the default motion. |
| Damages (solatium, prejudgment interest, punitive) | Solatium awards per Peterson/Heiser framework; prejudgment interest calculated by annual prime rate; punitive damages warranted and should mirror compensatory awards. | (No appearance) Potential objection: excessive punitive awards or improper interest calculation. | Court awarded solatium per Peterson II (with 25% upward deviation for three minors), prejudgment interest using prime‑rate method, and punitive damages equal to total compensatory awards (including prejudgment interest). |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (overview of FSIA and terrorism exception)
- Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (authorization of default judgments under FSIA; Congress’s intent)
- Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (default judgment not automatic; courts must assure jurisdiction)
- Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (strict adherence to FSIA service provisions)
- Angellino v. Royal Family Al‑Saud, 688 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (order of preference for §1608 service methods)
- Barot v. Embassy of the Republic of Zambia, 785 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (FSIA service requirement for suit against foreign state)
- Kilburn v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 376 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (proximate‑cause standard for FSIA claims)
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (definition and elements of extrajudicial killing under TVPA/FSIA)
- Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 84 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (use of prime rate for prejudgment interest)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (solatium damages framework)
- Acosta v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2008) (approach to solatium awards)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 879 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012) (punitive damages factors and prejudgment interest discretion)
- Ben‑Rafael v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 540 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D.D.C. 2008) (procedural sequencing for §1608 service)