Harrison v. Republic of Sudan
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44334
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- This case arises from the USS Cole bombing in Aden (Oct. 12, 2000) where 17 sailors were killed and 42 injured; plaintiffs sue under FSIA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception for Sudan’s support of Al Qaeda.
- Plaintiffs are 15 injured sailors and 3 spouses alleging assault, battery, and IIED for injuries and emotional distress.
- Plaintiffs moved for default judgment after Sudan accepted service and failed to respond within 60 days; an evidentiary hearing was held.
- Court notes that §1605A provides for a private right of action with damages for pain and suffering, solatium, and punitive damages where liability is established.
- Court acknowledges prior related actions (Rux v. Sudan and Kumar v. Sudan) and that §1605A damages differ from prior rulings, reflecting statutory changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA §1605A waives Sudan’s immunity | Plaintiffs rely on §1605A(a)(1)(2) to show jurisdiction. | Sudan contends immunity remains unless all §1605A conditions are met. | Jurisdiction and waiver established under §1605A(a)(1) and (a)(2). |
| Whether Sudan provided material support causally connected to the Cole attack | Sudan’s support to Al Qaeda sufficient to cause damages. | Sudan argues no causal link to specific injuries. | Yes; substantial uncontroverted evidence shows material support causally connected to injuries. |
| Whether plaintiffs may recover IIED, assault, battery, and solatium under FSIA | Claims fit Restatement torts; spouses’ distress recoverable per framework. | FSIA damages framework limits recovery; causation uncertain. | Judgment for assault, battery, IIED against Sudan; spouses entitled to solatium under framework. |
| What damages are recoverable and in what amounts (economic, pain and suffering, solatium, punitive) | Damages include compensatory (economic and non-economic), solatium, and punitive. | Sovereign defendant warrants cautious damages due to unique context. | Awarded compensatory and punitive damages; pain and suffering delineated; solatium to spouses; punitive at 3x compensatory. |
| Whether prejudgment interest is appropriate | Interest should accrue due to delayed recovery. | No delay by plaintiff or Sudan participation; interest unwarranted. | Prejudgment interest denied; solatium awards excluded from interest per Heiser framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rux v. Republic of Sudan, 461 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2006) (affirmed jurisdictional facts under FSIA and Al Qaeda material support connection)
- Rux v. Republic of Sudan (district rulingin 2005), 495 F. Supp. 2d 541 (E.D. Va. 2007) (court held FSIA jurisdiction and DOHSA damages framework applied)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (establishes causation and damages framework in FSIA terrorism cases)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009) (restatement-based framework for IIED/solatium in FSIA cases)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (FSIA-tort framework; approach to liability and damages)