Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55479
D.D.C.2012Background
- Beirut 1983 U.S. Marine Barracks bombing killed 241, with numerous injuries to Evan Fain and his family.
- Plaintiffs sue Iran and MOIS under FSIA 1605A (state-sponsored terrorism) for monetary damages.
- Court previously held in Peterson (2003) that Iran/MOIS supported Hezbollah and were liable for damages.
- Plaintiffs served via diplomatic channels; default entered when defendants did not respond; court must determine liability before default judgment.
- Court uses judicial notice of Peterson and related FSIA proceedings to inform findings; special master plan for damages is proposed.
- Court concludes Iran/MOIS liable under FSIA but needs a special master to determine damages; punitive damages pleaded are limited and some claims (punitive damages) are dismissed as standalone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA 1605A provides jurisdiction for money damages for the Beirut bombing | Fain seeks damages under 1605A for personal injuries and death | Iran/MOIS disputing extra-territorial reach | Yes; Court finds original jurisdiction present under 1605A(a)(1) |
| Whether Iran/MOIS waived sovereign immunity under 1605A(a)(2) and related criteria | Waiver due to designation as state sponsor and act causing the event | Immunity not waived absent arbitration opportunity | Waiver established; immunity waived under FSIA |
| Whether Iran/MOIS can be held vicariously liable for Hezbollah's acts | Hezbollah acted as Iran/MOIS agents; liability via agency theory | Liability must be proven independently | Yes; vicarious liability established under Furthers Rimkus/Murphy standards |
| Whether plaintiffs stated viable theories of recovery (assault, battery, IIED) and whether punitive damages may be awarded | Claims include assault, battery, IIED; punitive damages requested | Punitive damages require independent claim; some counts fail | Assault, battery, IIED viable; punitive damages not standalone but may be pursued as remedy for intentional torts; Count IV dismissed as standalone claim |
| Appropriate remedy and calculation via special master | Damages require expert determination; court should appoint master | Damages evaluation can be done without master | Special master to be appointed per 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(e)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2003) (found Iran/MOIS involvement; Hezbollah acts as Iran’s agent; liability for damages)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2007) (judicial notice and evidence in related cases; connection to damages)
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (procedural framework for evidentiary sufficiency in FSIA default judgments; punitive damages guidance)
- In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litigation, 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2010) (FSIA terrorism litigation; theories of recovery and tort-based framing)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009) (emotional distress standard in terrorism cases; presence considerations)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2010) (agency and liability concepts for foreign-state defendants)