589 F.Supp.3d 15
D.D.C.2022Background
- Two Hamas-perpetrated attacks in Israel (Hebron sniper shooting and Jerusalem car-ramming) in 2015 injured multiple persons, including two U.S. citizens (Eli Borochov and Yoav Golan) and several Israeli family members.
- Plaintiffs sued Iran and Syria under the FSIA terrorism exception, alleging the States provided material support (safe haven, funding, weapons, training, logistics) to Hamas.
- Iran and Syria did not appear; Plaintiffs moved for default judgment and submitted expert declarations to prove jurisdiction, liability, and damages.
- The court found Plaintiffs proved subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A and personal jurisdiction via proper service under § 1608(a)(4).
- On the merits the court found Syria and Iran provided material support "for" extrajudicial killings (as intended by Hamas), that support proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries, and established liability under federal law for U.S. plaintiffs and under Israeli law (aiding-and-abetting/neglect) for the Israeli victim Rotem.
- Remedies: U.S. plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages (individualized awards) and punitive damages equal to compensatory damages (total punitive award apportioned among plaintiffs); most Israeli plaintiffs’ compensatory requests were denied for failure to prove foreign-law damages amounts, except Rotem (who recovered under the Heiser framework).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under FSIA §1605A | Plaintiffs: two victims are U.S. nationals and Iran/Syria were designated state sponsors at relevant times; §1605A thus applies | Defendants: no appearance (default) | Court: §1605A thresholds satisfied; jurisdiction exists |
| Whether material support satisfies §1605A "for" an extrajudicial killing when attacks caused no deaths | Plaintiffs: States provided support with the purpose of lethal attacks; "for" encompasses support intended to produce killings even if none occurred | Defendants: no response/default; some precedent reads "killing" as requiring death | Court: "Killing" requires a fatality, but §1605A covers support given "for" extrajudicial killing (i.e., support aimed at lethal attacks); Plaintiffs’ evidence shows States provided support with that objective |
| Personal jurisdiction / service under FSIA §1608 | Plaintiffs: attempted service via clerk failed; State Dept. completed service under §1608(a)(4) | Defendants: default/no appearance | Court: Service via State Department satisfied §1608(a)(4); personal jurisdiction proper |
| Causation / liability (material support → plaintiffs’ injuries) | Plaintiffs: expert evidence shows Iran and Syria materially supported Hamas (funding, weapons, training, safe haven) and that support was a substantial factor and foreseeable cause | Defendants: default/no response | Court: Expert evidence sufficient; States’ support was a substantial factor and the injuries were foreseeable; liability established |
| Choice of law for non-U.S. (Israeli) plaintiffs | Plaintiffs: apply Israeli law to Israeli plaintiffs | Defendants: default/no response | Court: D.C. conflict rules favor Israeli law (injuries occurred in Israel; plaintiffs domiciled in Israel); Israeli law applies |
| Damages (compensatory, solatium, punitive) | Plaintiffs: seek Heiser-based compensatory awards and $150M punitive per family | Defendants: default/no response | Court: Awards made for U.S. plaintiffs per established FSIA/Heiser guidance; solatium awards allocated by relationship; punitive damages awarded equal to compensatory (total $27.5M) rather than flat $150M per family; most Israeli plaintiffs denied compensatory damages for failure to provide Israeli-law quantification except Rotem |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (FSIA exceptions and jurisdictional principles)
- Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (foreign sovereign immunity waiver principles)
- Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (default-judgment personal-jurisdiction requirement)
- Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (FSIA §1608(e) evidentiary standard for defaulting foreign states)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 573 F.3d 835 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (TVPA/extrajudicial killing as a ‘‘killing’’)
- Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 892 F.3d 348 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (plaintiff class limitations and district-court discretion on damage calculations under FSIA)
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (TVPA elements and causation discussion)
- Van Beneden v. Al-Sanusi, 709 F.3d 1165 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (interpretation of FSIA ambiguities)
- Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) (textualist approach to statutory interpretation)