Khaliq v. Republic of Sudan
33 F. Supp. 3d 29
D.D.C.2014Background
- Over fifteen years ago, the 1998 Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassy bombings killed and injured hundreds, prompting FSIA-based liability litigation against Sudan, the Sudan Ministry of Interior, Iran, and the Iranian MOIS.
- Plaintiffs are U.S. nationals injured in the Nairobi bombing and seven immediate family members; service was effected on all named defendants, who defaulted.
- The court previously determined jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(e) and entered a liability judgment in plaintiffs' favor.
- A special master, Paul G. Griffin, was appointed to calculate damages based on sworn testimony, expert reports, and medical records, with the court adopting the master’s findings when supported by evidence.
- The court adopted the master’s damages framework, including pain-and-suffering, solatium, and economic damages, and awarded a total judgment in excess of $49 million.
- Punitive damages were waived by plaintiffs, and prejudgment interest was authorized, using a year-by-year prime-rate multiplier to reflect time value of money.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to damages under FSIA | Plaintiffs (B, Victims) argue damages are recoverable under § 1605A. | Defendants contest the amount or availability of damages under FSIA framework. | Plaintiffs entitled to damages under § 1605A. |
| Proper framework for calculating pain and suffering | Survivors warrant traditional tort-like damages including pain and suffering with baseline and upward adjustments. | Defendants contend limited or different damages framework should apply. | Court adopts established framework with baseline $5M and potential adjustments; some downward adjustment to align solatium with pain-and-suffering awards. |
| Solatium for family members | Immediate family members may recover solatium following the Valore/Peterson II framework. | Limited or controlled solatium awards should apply consistent with prior cases. | Solatium awards adopted under Valore guidelines; one reduction to match pain-and-suffering for a specific related victim. |
| Punitive damages | Plaintiffs seek punitive damages where appropriate. | No punitive damages pursued or awarded due to waiver. | Counts seeking punitive damages are dismissed due to waivers. |
| Prejudgment interest methodology | Interest should reflect time value of money using a prime-rate multiplier year-by-year. | Opposes or limits prejudgment interest claims in some respects. | Prejudgment interest awarded using year-by-year prime-rate multiplier; present value adjustments applied to medical expenses; total damages include base plus interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.Supp.2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (framework for damages, including pain and suffering and solatium)
- Peterson II, 515 F.Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (solatium framework and guidelines)
- O’Brien v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 853 F.Supp.2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012) (pain-and-suffering framework for terrorism victims)
- Bland v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 831 F.Supp.2d 150 (D.D.C. 2011) (solatium and damages framework)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 879 F.Supp.2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012) (solatium and damages standards; treatment of related injuries)
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 826 F.Supp.2d 128 (D.D.C. 2011) (FSIA damages framework and factual findings)
- Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 84 F.3d 446 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (time-value prejudgment interest methodology)
- Oldham v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 127 F.3d 43 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (prejudgment interest principles and approaches)