Onsongo v. Republic of Sudan
60 F. Supp. 3d 144
D.D.C.2014Background
- 1998 simultaneous suicide bombings destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam; hundreds killed and many injured. Plaintiffs are fourteen Kenyan citizens (injured and family members) connected to the Nairobi bombing.
- Defendants (Sudan, Iranian entities) were served but defaulted; the Court previously entered liability under the FSIA. Owens v. Republic of Sudan and related rulings established jurisdiction and that certain foreign-national U.S. government employees have federal causes of action.
- The Court appointed two special masters to take evidence and recommend damages, relying on sworn testimony, expert reports, and records. The Court adopted the special masters’ factual findings.
- The Court applied FSIA federal claims for government-employee victims and District of Columbia law for foreign-national family members seeking solatium for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The Court adopted established district frameworks for compensatory awards (pain-and-suffering baselines, solatium schedule from Peterson II/Valore), adjusted certain recommendations, awarded punitive damages equal to compensatory damages, applied prejudgment interest using a prime-rate multiplier, and entered total judgment of $199,106,578.19.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injured foreign-national U.S. government employees can recover under FSIA §1605A | Employees argue FSIA provides federal cause of action for personal injury/wrongful death | Defendants defaulted; no substantive opposition presented | Court held employees have federal claims and may recover under §1605A; applied tort principles to assess damages (adopting special masters) |
| Whether foreign-national family members (not employees) can recover solatium and under what law | Family members seek solatium under D.C. law for intentional infliction of emotional distress | Defendants defaulted; no contest; issue is choice of law and qualifying relationship | Court applied D.C. law, found prima facie IID claims, and awarded solatium per Peterson II/Valore schedules (with limited exceptions) |
| Proper compensatory damages framework (pain & suffering, economic loss, solatium) | Plaintiffs rely on special masters, CFES economic reports, and district precedent baselines for awards | Defendants offered no counter-evidence; Court required conformity with district frameworks for uniformity | Court adopted special masters’ recommendations largely, applied established baselines (e.g., $5M severe injury baseline), awarded economic losses per CFES, adjusted certain solatium awards to match Peterson II guidance |
| Punitive damages and prejudgment interest calculation | Plaintiffs seek punitive damages and prejudgment interest at prime rate for full compensatory award | Defendants defaulted; limited record on expenditures prevented multiplier method based on terror spending | Court awarded punitive damages equal to total compensatory damages (apportioned by plaintiff), and applied prejudgment interest using annual prime-rate multiplier (2.26185 for 1998 amounts), with caveats on double-counting already-discounted economic figures |
Key Cases Cited
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (damages framework and solatium guidance used for terrorism victims)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (Peterson II) (baseline solatium schedule for relatives of deceased and injured victims)
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 826 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2011) (jurisdiction and availability of FSIA causes for foreign-national U.S. government employees)
- Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 84 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (approving use of annual prime rate for prejudgment interest)
- Oldham v. Korean Air Lines Co., 127 F.3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (prejudgment interest principles and prime-rate application)