Anderson v. the Islamic Republic of Iran
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126457
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- Beirut bombing of 1983 killed 241 U.S. servicemen and injured others; plaintiffs are family members and estates seeking damages under FSIA §1605A (state-sponsored terrorism) for emotional distress from the attack.
- NDDAA of 2008 created a federal right of action against foreign states for certain terrorist acts; §1605A retroactively applicable under related action procedures.
- Plaintiffs here filed an Amended Complaint under §1605A after service via diplomatic channels under §1608(a)(4); defendants defaulted on November 5, 2010.
- Court may take judicial notice of related proceedings (Peterson, Valore) to establish liability findings, subject to limits on admitting prior court findings as hearsay.
- Evidence shows Iran and MOIS (Iranian Ministry of Information and Security) supported Hezbollah and directed attacks; Beirut bombing attributed to Hezbollah with Iranian involvement; court finds jurisdiction and waiver of sovereign immunity.
- Court will appoint a special master to determine damages; liability established but damages require further proceedings before any award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application of §1605A to this case | NDAA permits retroactive application to pending cases | Need for strict retroactivity compliance and timely action | §1605A retroactively applicable to this case under NDAA procedures |
| Estate-plaintiffs’ standing to sue for decedent pain and suffering | Estates may sue for decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering | State law limits on recovery for pain and suffering apply | Estate-plaintiffs may pursue pain-and-suffering damages under state-law survivorship rules compatible with §1605A |
| Evidentiary basis for default judgment in FSIA cases | Judicial notice of Peterson and Valore evidence suffices | Need live testimony or admissible evidence of record | Court may rely on judicial notice of related proceedings to support liability findings in default judgment |
| Liability theory under §1605A (act, actor, causation, injury) | Iran and MOIS provided material support and directed activities leading to the bombing | Need direct causation evidence and agency findings | Iran and MOIS liable for extrajudicial killing and material support; Hezbollah acted as Iran's agent; causation and injury shown |
| Punitive damages under §1605A | Count IV seeks punitive damages for the conduct | Punitive damages cannot stand as an independent claim under FSIA | Count IV dismissed as standalone claim; punitive damages may be pursued as a remedy for an intentional tort within Counts I-III |
Key Cases Cited
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (FSIA damages actions require articulated theories of liability; use of Restatement principles)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (Liability for extrajudicial killings and material support; court addresses damages framework)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (Liability and damages principles in FSIA state-sponsored terrorism actions)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009) (Restatement-based framework for intentional infliction of emotional distress in terrorism context)
- In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (Related procedural considerations in Beirut terrorism cases)