Akins v. Islamic Republic of Iran
332 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- On June 25, 1996 a 5,000‑pound truck bomb destroyed part of the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; 19 U.S. service members were killed and many others injured.
- Plaintiffs are 15 U.S. service members who were injured at Khobar and 24 of their immediate family members; they sued the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IRGC under the FSIA terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A.
- Defendants did not appear; plaintiffs moved for default judgment as to liability and damages; the Court took judicial notice of factual findings and evidence from prior related Khobar litigation (e.g., Heiser, Blais, Rimkus).
- The Court found service under 28 U.S.C. § 1608 was proper, subject‑matter jurisdiction under § 1605A existed, and personal jurisdiction had been established.
- Applying FSIA § 1605A(c) and common‑law tort principles, the Court held Iran and the IRGC jointly and severally liable for assault/battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress to survivors and for solatium to immediate family members, and awarded compensatory damages totaling $104,700,000.
- The Court denied punitive damages (pre‑§1605A conduct) and declined prejudgment interest for consistency with prior Khobar awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under FSIA §1605A | Khobar attack was an extrajudicial killing supported by Iran/IRGC; plaintiffs are U.S. nationals; therefore §1605A applies | Implicitly: defendants did not respond; no competing argument preserved | Court found Iran a state sponsor of terrorism at the time, IRGC an instrumentality, plaintiffs were U.S. nationals, and §1605A jurisdiction exists |
| Personal jurisdiction / service (28 U.S.C. §1608) | Service was effected via certified mail to Iran/IRGC and via diplomatic channels per §1608(a)(3)–(4) | No appearance or challenge | Service was proper and personal jurisdiction exists |
| Liability for torts (assault, battery, IIED, solatium) | Judicial notice of prior findings (Heiser, Blais) + plaintiffs’ sworn declarations establish defendants provided material support and plaintiffs’ injuries/ distress | No defense presented | Court held defendants jointly and severally liable for assault/battery and IIED for survivors and solatium for immediate family members |
| Damages (compensatory, punitive, interest) | Plaintiffs seek economic, pain and suffering, solatium, punitive damages, and prejudgment interest | Defendants did not contest; Owens precedent may bar punitive damages for pre‑2008 conduct | Court awarded specified pain & suffering and solatium awards totaling $104,700,000; denied punitive damages (Owens) and denied prejudgment interest for consistency with prior Khobar awards |
Key Cases Cited
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (permitting judicial notice of evidence from prior related litigation)
- Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2006) (factual findings on Iran/IRGC role in Khobar attack)
- Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (Heiser I) (extensive factual record on material support by Iran/IRGC)
- Heiser II (Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran), 659 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009) (solatium framework and IIED analysis)
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (punitive damages unavailable for conduct before enactment of §1605A)
- Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 892 F.3d 348 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (standards for damages and district court discretion under §1605A)
- Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (default judgment personal‑jurisdiction principles)
- Jerez v. Republic of Cuba, 775 F.3d 419 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (FSIA §1608(e) evidentiary standard for default judgments)