Cohen v. Islamic Republic of Iran
268 F. Supp. 3d 19
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- In 2001 a Hamas suicide bomber detonated on a Jerusalem bus, injuring members of the Cohen family; plaintiffs sued Iran and two Iranian instrumentalities under the FSIA state-sponsor-of-terrorism exception.
- The Court entered default judgment against Defendants finding Iran liable based on documented support for Hamas; a Special Master was appointed to recommend damages.
- Special Master Greenspan reviewed medical records, depositions, and prior FSIA case law to recommend awards for pain and suffering, solatium, and punitive damages.
- The Court adopted the Special Master’s factual findings and damage allocations, applying the District of Columbia district court’s baseline framework for compensatory awards and established approaches for solatium.
- The Court awarded $208,950,000 total: $69,650,000 in compensatory (pain and suffering + solatium) and $139,300,000 in punitive damages (double compensatory), apportioned among family members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate baseline and adjustments for pain and suffering | Apply D.D.C. baseline $5M for substantial injuries and adjust up/down per injury severity | No contest due to default; implicit challenge to magnitude not presented | Court adopted baseline approach, awarded amounts per Special Master (ranging $750K–$7M) consistent with precedent |
| Solatium calculation when multiple family members injured (additive vs enhancement) | Plaintiffs sought additive solatium for each injured family member | No contest on merits; Court evaluated proper method | Court rejected additive approach; used baseline solatium amounts enhanced by percentages for additional injured relatives |
| Punitive damages methodology and magnitude | Plaintiffs sought a very large punitive award (including alternative methods) | No defense presented; Court assessed appropriate punitive calculus | Court applied punitive = 2x total compensatory (not multiplier of state terror spending or extreme multiple), yielding $139.3M |
| Prejudgment interest on compensatory damages | Plaintiffs requested prejudgment interest in briefing | Defendants did not oppose; Court limited to relief pleaded | Court denied prejudgment interest because it was not requested in the complaint and found nonpecuniary damages typically complete without interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 864 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2012) (baseline compensatory framework and solatium guidance)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (punitive and solatium principles)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (baseline $5M for substantial injuries)
- Bluth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 203 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016) (application of compensatory/punitive approaches)
- Wamai v. Republic of Sudan, 60 F. Supp. 3d 84 (D.D.C. 2014) (comparative damages for less severe physical injuries)
- Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 424 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 2006) (discussion of character of terrorist acts and punitive rationale)
- Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 77 F. Supp. 3d 57 (D.D.C. 2015) (punitive tied to compensatory awards)
- Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 60 F. Supp. 3d 68 (D.D.C. 2014) (punitive equaling compensatory in some cases)
- Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D.D.C. 2003) (deterrence rationale for significant punitive awards)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 879 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012) (factors for punitive damages analysis)