Blank v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Civil Action No. 2019-3645
| D.D.C. | Jul 17, 2021Background
- On June 25, 1996, a truck bomb at the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killed 19 U.S. service-members and injured many others; the attack was attributed to Saudi Hezbollah.
- Four plaintiffs here are immediate family members (two mothers, two siblings) of two Air Force service-members who were injured in the bombing.
- Plaintiffs allege the Islamic Republic of Iran provided material support, direction, and resources (through IRGC/MOIS) to Saudi Hezbollah, making Iran liable under the FSIA terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A.
- The Court took judicial notice of extensive findings and evidence developed in prior related FSIA cases (notably Heiser and Blais) establishing Iran’s role.
- Iran was properly served under FSIA § 1608(a)(4), default was entered for failure to appear, and plaintiffs moved for default judgment on liability and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under FSIA §1605A | Iran was a designated state sponsor of terrorism at the time and provided material support that caused extrajudicial killings/injuries to U.S. service-members | (No appearance) | Jurisdiction exists: Iran designated a state sponsor of terrorism; bombing constituted extrajudicial killings and proximate cause satisfied by prior evidence. |
| Personal jurisdiction / service under FSIA §1608 | Service via diplomatic channels under §1608(a)(4) was proper after attempted mail service failed | (No appearance) | Service by State Department through Swiss channels satisfied §1608(a)(4); court has personal jurisdiction. |
| Liability (material support; IIED to family members) | Judicial notice of prior findings plus plaintiffs’ uncontested declarations establish Iran materially supported attack and defendants are liable for IIED/solatium to immediate family | (No appearance) | Default judgment on liability: Iran liable under §1605A for providing material support; family members entitled to IIED/solatium. |
| Damages (solatium, punitive, prejudgment interest) | Plaintiffs seek solatium, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, punitive damages; request awards tied to Heiser framework and Christie approach to punitive damages | (No appearance) | Solatium awards set using Heiser baseline with proportional departures (total compensatory $5,625,000); punitive damages awarded equal to compensatory ($5,625,000); prejudgment interest denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akins v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018) (adopts Heiser framework and awards solatium to family members of injured service-members)
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (endorses judicial notice of factual findings in earlier FSIA terrorism cases)
- Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (extensive evidentiary findings on Iran’s role; provides Heiser solatium framework)
- Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 892 F.3d 348 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (describes lenient appellate review and district court discretion in FSIA default judgments)
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (proximate-cause standard and appellate review guidance for FSIA terrorism cases)
- Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (approves judicial notice of foreign-court findings to meet FSIA evidentiary burden)
- Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998) (earlier punitive-damages methodology in state-sponsored terrorism cases)
- Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 140 S. Ct. 1601 (2020) (Supreme Court holds punitive damages are available under §1605A(c) for pre-2008 conduct)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (Supreme Court guideposts for reviewing punitive damages)