213 F. Supp. 3d 27
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiffs are Israeli and other victims of July–August 2006 Hezbollah rocket attacks in northern Israel who sued Iran and North Korea under the FSIA's state‑sponsored terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A.
- Court previously found liability as to Iran and North Korea and appointed a Special Master to take evidence and recommend individual damage awards.
- Special Master issued detailed reports recommending awards, denials, and departures for various plaintiffs based on testimonial, medical, and financial evidence (or lack thereof).
- The Court reviewed standing under §1605A, dismissing claims by non‑qualifying foreign nationals (Myra Mandel, Michael Fuchs) and denying certain pain‑and‑suffering claims for non‑U.S. nationals (e.g., Danielle Sauter for pain and suffering).
- The Court adopted most Special Master recommendations on compensatory, solatium, economic, and punitive damages, reduced or denied awards where evidentiary support was lacking, and applied a punitive/compensatory ratio established in prior terrorism cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under §1605A (who may sue) | Non‑U.S. plaintiffs sought recovery for injuries; some argued derivative claims or close ties justify awards | Defendants (and Special Master) relied on statutory text limiting who may bring §1605A claims (U.S. nationals, U.S. employees, military, or legal representatives) | Court adopted Special Master: dismissed claims of non‑qualifying plaintiffs (Mandel, Fuchs); denied certain non‑U.S. pain claims (Sauter) |
| Compensatory pain & suffering awards (quantum) | Plaintiffs sought baseline or higher awards for many victims; some sought increases on reconsideration with supplemental records | Defendants urged denial or reduction where medical/psych evidence lacking or injuries minor | Court applied established lodestar and precedents, adopted Special Master awards, granted enhancements where well‑documented, denied or reduced awards where evidence insufficient |
| Economic damages (proof requirement) | Plaintiffs claimed lost income/business costs; later submitted some financial exhibits/expert calculations | Defendants argued economic claims require contemporaneous, corroborating documentary evidence and forensic support | Court affirmed Special Master: awarded economic damages only where corroborating financial records existed (Dvora Kaszemacher); denied speculative/unsupported claims (e.g., Kaplan, Greenberg, Sauter, Mor, Aron) |
| Review of Special Master and supplementation of record | Plaintiffs sought reconsideration and submitted new evidence to challenge denials for children and others | Defendants relied on Rule 53 and the record before the Special Master, opposing post‑report supplementation | Court refused to reopen the record except narrowly; conducted de novo review of recommendations and declined to overturn based on late or uncorroborated materials |
| Punitive damages calculation | Plaintiffs sought punitive awards to punish/deter state sponsors of terrorism | Defendants raised concerns about double punishment/redundant awards across cases | Court adopted previously used punitive/compensatory ratio (3.44:1) to calculate punitive damages for this group |
Key Cases Cited
- Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011) (FSIA §1605A is a federal cause of action against state sponsors of terrorism)
- Davis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 882 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2012) (lodestar baseline for pain and suffering awards in terrorism cases)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (factors for assessing pain and suffering; baseline awards)
- Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (default judgment damages require proof of injury with reasonable certainty)
- Worley v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 75 F. Supp. 3d 311 (D.D.C. 2014) (foreign nationals must base claims on injuries of statutorily qualified victims)
- Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 864 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2012) (avoidance of duplicative solatium awards within a family)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2011) (solatium awards and valuation guidance)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (punitive/compensatory ratio discussion and caution against cumulative punishments)
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 150 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (deterrence rationale for punitive damages in terrorism cases)
- Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D.D.C. 2003) (comparison of severe permanent injuries in awarding damages)