87 F. Supp. 3d 286
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Han Kim (son) and Yong Seok Kim (brother) sued the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the FSIA terrorism exception for the abduction, presumed torture, and death of Reverend Kim Dong Shik, a missionary working with North Korean refugees in China.
- North Korea did not respond; plaintiffs moved for default judgment. The district court initially denied default judgment for lack of sufficient evidence to establish FSIA jurisdiction/terrorism exception.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that evidence of North Korean involvement in the abduction plus expert testimony about North Korea’s treatment of political prisoners satisfied the jurisdictional/terrorism-exception standard and directed entry of default judgment.
- The district court treated the D.C. Circuit’s jurisdictional ruling as also establishing liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, leaving damages as the remaining issue.
- Plaintiffs submitted affidavits detailing their close emotional relationships with Reverend Kim and the ongoing emotional harm from his abduction and presumed death; the court found affidavits sufficient and no hearing necessary.
- The court awarded compensatory damages of $15,000,000 to each plaintiff and collective punitive damages of $300,000,000 against North Korea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA terrorism exception jurisdiction and liability were established | Evidence of North Korean role in abduction + expert testimony on NK torture practice suffices | (No response) North Korea failed to defend | D.C. Circuit: evidence sufficient; default judgment ordered and liability deemed established when §1605A(a)(1) met |
| Whether plaintiffs proved compensatory damages (solatium, pain and suffering) | Affidavits showing close familial bonds and ongoing grief justify awards; affidavits are admissible proof | (No response) | District court: affidavits suffice; awarded $15M each in compensatory damages |
| Standard and quantum for compensatory damages under FSIA | Plaintiffs: damages measured reasonably, by reference to comparable FSIA awards and years since abduction | (No response) | Court applied Hill standard (reasonable certainty, reasonable estimate) and comparable-case ranges to set $15M awards |
| Whether punitive damages appropriate and amount | Plaintiffs: outrageous conduct, severe harm, need for deterrence justify significant punitive award | (No response) | Court applied four-factor punitive test and awarded $300M collectively, citing precedent awarding similar sums |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (appellate reversal and direction to enter default judgment based on jurisdictional showing)
- Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (damages standard: reasonable certainty and reasonable estimate)
- Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 78 F. Supp. 3d 379 (D.D.C. 2015) (structure of FSIA claims and solatium discussion)
- Massie v. Gov’t of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 592 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2008) (comparative compensatory awards in North Korea abduction/torture cases)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2011) (solatium and punitive damages discussion in FSIA cases)
- Calderon-Cardona v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 723 F. Supp. 2d 441 (D.P.R. 2010) (punitive damages awarded against North Korea)
- Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 907 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2012) (four-factor test for punitive damages)