Bluth v. Islamic Republic of Iran
203 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Nethaniel Bluth and family) sued Iran, Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS), and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) under the FSIA terrorism exception for material support to Hamas, which carried out a March 7, 2002 suicide/assault attack on a yeshiva in Atzmona that injured Nethaniel and killed others.
- Service was effected under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4); Iran did not appear and the Clerk entered default. The Court held an evidentiary hearing and considered witness testimony and expert declarations about Iran–Hamas ties.
- Fact findings: Hamas claimed responsibility; the attacker (identified as Mohammad Farahat) had ties to Hamas; experts testified Iran provided financial, training, and tactical support to Hamas during the relevant period.
- Nethaniel suffered severe physical injuries (head/face wounds, shrapnel, permanent unilateral hearing loss, scarring) and long‑term psychological injuries (PTSD‑like symptoms). Family members experienced substantial emotional distress from his injuries and the incident.
- The Court found jurisdiction under FSIA § 1605A (terrorism exception), concluded Iran provided material support to Hamas, and determined Iran liable for battery and IIED (for Nethaniel) and for solatium (for family members), subject to damage calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction & service under FSIA §1608 | Service via Secretary of State/Swiss Embassy under §1608(a)(4) was proper | Iran did not appear/contest service | Court found service under §1608(a)(4) was valid and personal jurisdiction established |
| FSIA §1605A threshold (state sponsor, material support, nexus) | Iran is a long‑standing state sponsor of terrorism and provided funds, training, and resources to Hamas that foreseeably enabled the Atzmona attack | Iran did not contest (default); no factual rebuttal presented | Court held Iran was a designated state sponsor and provided material support to Hamas, satisfying §1605A elements and nexus to plaintiffs' injuries |
| Tort liability (battery, IIED, solatium) | Iran’s material support makes it liable for harms caused by Hamas: battery and IIED for Nethaniel; solatium for close relatives | Iran defaulted; no arguments presented | Court held Iran liable: battery and IIED (but recovery limited to one theory for pain/suffering) for Nethaniel; solatium awarded to parents and siblings (except one sibling without testimony) |
| Damages (compensatory and punitive) | Requested large awards (pain/suffering, economic, solatium, $500M punitive) based on severity and deterrence | Iran defaulted; no contest to amounts | Court awarded: $6,000,000 pain & suffering to Nethaniel (battery); no separate IIED pain award (to avoid double recovery); no economic damages (insufficient proof); solatium: $2.5M to each parent, $1.25M to each sibling (except Chanina); $25,000,000 punitive damages total |
Key Cases Cited
- Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (FSIA default judgment proof standard and court discretion to determine what is "satisfactory to the court")
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 826 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2011) (discussion of FSIA §1605A and adaptation of tort principles for damages)
- Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 77 F. Supp. 3d 57 (D.D.C. 2015) (solatium framework and evidentiary requirements for economic damages)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (approach to pain-and-suffering and punitive awards in FSIA terrorism cases)
- Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 184 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2002) (punitive damages analysis and prior punitive award methodology)