Flanagan v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41015
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are the mother and four brothers of Kevin Rux, a U.S. sailor killed in the October 12, 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Aden, Yemen; plaintiffs sue Iran and Sudan (and various agencies) under the FSIA §1605A for solatium and IIED.
- Defaults were entered against Iranian and Sudanese defendants; plaintiffs proceeded by evidentiary hearing (Aug. 12, 2014) and judicial notice of related Rux litigation.
- Record includes expert testimony and documentary evidence tying Sudan to hosting, financing, training, and facilitating Al‑Qaeda in the 1990s, and tying Iran (through MOIS, IRGC/Qods, and Hezbollah) to training, facilitation, and logistical support for Al‑Qaeda.
- Court found that Sudanese and Iranian material support (safe haven, financial networks, training, travel facilitation) materially enabled Al‑Qaeda and thereby facilitated the Cole bombing that caused Kevin’s death.
- Medical expert evidence established severe and persistent bereavement/trauma for each plaintiff; court found plaintiffs proved solatium damages under §1605A.
- Court entered default judgment: compensatory (solatium) awards for each plaintiff with 25% upward enhancement, and punitive damages equal to three times each plaintiff’s compensatory award (jointly and severally against defendants), plus statutory post‑judgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction under FSIA §1605A | Rux plaintiffs: §1605A applies because death was caused by extrajudicial killing enabled by material support from Iran and Sudan | Defendants defaulted (no active contrary showing) | Court: jurisdiction exists — §1605A applies (material support and extrajudicial killing proven) |
| Personal jurisdiction / service under FSIA §1608 | Service on Sudan via foreign minister and on Iran via Swiss Interests Section satisfied §1608 | Defendants did not appear to contest service | Court: service was proper under §1608(a)(3) (Sudan) and §1608(a)(4) (Iran); personal jurisdiction established |
| Liability theory (causation / theory of recovery) | Plaintiffs: material support to Al‑Qaeda by Iran and Sudan proximately facilitated Cole bombing → solatium/IIED recovery under tort principles and §1605A | Defendants defaulted; no countervailing causation evidence offered | Court: plaintiffs proved defendants’ material support caused the extrajudicial killing; recovery allowed under solatium theory (proceed solely on solatium) |
| Damages — amount and punitive calculation | Plaintiffs: request enhanced solatium and large punitive award (propose Flatow method with high multiplicand/multiplier) | Defendants defaulted; court considered prior related awards and risk of duplicative punishments | Court: solatium baselines with 25% enhancement awarded; punitive damages set at 3× compensatory (using ratio from Harrison/Murphy to avoid duplication and ensure consistency); joint and several liability imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (establishes FSIA as sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (FSIA §1605A causation, solatium analysis, and punitive‑to‑compensatory comparisons)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (use of prior case punitive/compensatory ratio to avoid duplicative punishment across related suits)
- Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 882 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2012) (punitive award for U.S.S. Cole bombing used as comparative baseline)
- Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998) (articulated Flatow method for punitive damages against state sponsors of terrorism)
- Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (survey of solatium/pain and suffering baseline awards)
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (court’s duty to require satisfactory evidence before entering default FSIA judgments)
- Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007) (principles on limiting punitive awards to harms to plaintiffs; cited for fairness/consistency though Due Process does not bind foreign states)