Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran
248 F. Supp. 3d 21
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- On June 12, 2014, three Israeli teenagers (including 16‑year‑old U.S. citizen Yaakov Naftali Fraenkel) were kidnapped while hitchhiking; their bodies were recovered after 18 days.
- Plaintiffs (Naftali’s parents and siblings; most are U.S. citizens) sued Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS), and Syria under the FSIA state‑sponsored terrorism exception and related state‑law claims. Defendants did not appear; court proceeded under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) requiring plaintiffs to prove claims by evidence satisfactory to the court.
- Plaintiffs presented live testimony, affidavits, documentary and expert evidence that Iran/MOIS and Syria provided material support to Hamas (training, safe haven, political cover, funds, weapons) that enabled Hamas’s operations in Israel.
- Court treated MOIS as part of the Iranian state for FSIA service and held jurisdiction under the § 1605A state‑sponsored terrorism exception because the victim and many plaintiffs were U.S. citizens.
- The court found Iran and Syria provided material support to Hamas that made the kidnapping and murder foreseeable and that Hamas acted as their agent for purposes of liability. Plaintiffs proved liability and damages at the default hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA §1605A waives immunity for claims arising from Naftali’s kidnapping and murder | §1605A applies because defendants are state sponsors of terrorism and the victim/plaintiffs are U.S. citizens | (No appearance) | Held: §1605A applies; court has jurisdiction over Iran and Syria. |
| Whether defendants provided "material support or resources" to Hamas that caused the attack | Iran and Syria provided funding, training, weapons, safe haven and political support that enabled Hamas’s operations in Israel | (No appearance / contested by absence) | Held: Plaintiffs’ uncontroverted expert and documentary evidence satisfied the court that defendants provided material support contributing to the kidnapping and murder. |
| Standard and sufficiency of proof in FSIA default under 28 U.S.C. §1608(e) | Plaintiffs must present a legally sufficient prima facie case and clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages | (No appearance) | Held: Evidence at two‑day hearing was satisfactory to establish liability and punitive damages. |
| Damages recoverable under §1605A(c) and applicable law for non‑U.S. plaintiff (Abraham) | U.S. plaintiffs recover statutory solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages under §1605A(c); Abraham (non‑U.S.) entitled to recovery under Israeli law via §1606 | (No appearance) | Held: Awarded $1,000,000 (pain & suffering to estate); $3,100,000 solatium to U.S. plaintiffs; $1,000,000 solatium to Abraham under Israeli law; $50,000,000 punitive (jointly & severally against Iran and Syria). |
Key Cases Cited
- Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (core‑functions test and FSIA service/agency analysis)
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1989) (FSIA is sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states)
- Ungar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 211 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2002) (prima facie standard for FSIA default proceedings)
- Commercial Bank of Kuwait v. Rafidain Bank, 15 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 1994) (standard for evidence in FSIA default judgments)
- Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998) (solatium and punitive damages discussion in state‑sponsored terrorism cases)