Rachel Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran
892 F.3d 348
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- Sixteen-year-old Yaakov Naftali Fraenkel (dual U.S.-Israeli citizen) was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas in the West Bank on June 12, 2014; his family sued Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, and Syria under the FSIA terrorism exception, alleging material support to Hamas.
- Defendants did not appear; after a two-day evidentiary hearing the District Court entered default judgments on liability and awarded: $1M to Naftali’s estate for pain and suffering, $3.1M in solatium to Naftali’s U.S.-national mother and children, $1M solatium to the non-U.S. father under Israeli law, and $50M punitive damages (jointly and severally against Iran and Syria).
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, arguing the District Court should follow the solatium baselines summarized in Estate of Heiser; the District Court denied reconsideration and reduced solatium awards below amounts in Gates, citing (1) that Naftali was targeted as an Israeli (not as an American) and (2) that the family had “accepted the risk” of living/sending him to school in the West Bank.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed only the damages rulings (jurisdiction and liability undisputed) and applied abuse-of-discretion review to the District Court’s solatium, pain-and-suffering, and punitive damages awards.
- The Court affirmed the pain-and-suffering and punitive awards but reversed and remanded the solatium awards (including the father’s award under Israeli law), holding the District Court relied on impermissible considerations and clearly erroneous factual findings when limiting solatium.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by not applying Heiser solatium baselines | Heiser provides baseline solatium amounts that should guide awards | Heiser is non-binding; district courts have discretion under §1608(e) | Heiser is persuasive but not mandatory; district courts have discretion (court declined to impose Heiser as mandatory) |
| Whether victims’ motivation for targeting (Israeli vs. U.S.) may reduce solatium | Fraenkel: terrorist motive irrelevant; solatium measures family grief regardless of victim’s nationality | District Court: Gates victims were targeted as Americans, justifying higher awards; Fraenkels were targeted as Israelis | Court: Terrorist motive/nationality is not a permissible basis to reduce solatium; reversed on this ground |
| Whether "assumption of risk" can reduce solatium because family lived/attended school in high-risk area | Fraenkel: assumption-of-risk inapplicable to intentional torts; family did not voluntarily assume risk of kidnapping/murder | District Court: living near conflict and sending son to West Bank implied acceptance of risk, justifying lower awards | Court: Assumption of risk inapplicable here; factual finding about dangerous junction was clearly erroneous; reversed on this ground |
| Whether pain-and-suffering and punitive awards were excessive or improperly calculated | Fraenkel: briefly argued awards insufficiently supported | District Court: awards supported by evidence and statutory standards | Court: Affirmed pain-and-suffering and punitive damages as within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (survey of prior FSIA solatium awards and proposed baseline amounts)
- Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008) (solatium awards for U.S. contractors targeted abroad)
- Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998) (seminal exposition of solatium doctrine and factors for damages)
- Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standard for proving damages in FSIA default judgments)
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (discussion of FSIA jurisdiction, damages proof leniency, and alternative claims by foreign-national family members)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard where findings are clearly erroneous or based on legal error)
- United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326 (1988) (discretion must be guided by sound legal principles)