Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120991
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- Rimkus I found Iran, MOIS, and IRGC liable for Khobar Towers bombing and awarded $5M compensatory damages; punitive damages denied.
- NDAA enacted in 2008 repealing §1605(a)(7) and creating §1605A, allowing punitive damages for acts of terrorism.
- Rimkus (father of deceased Airman) filed a separate action under §1605A seeking punitive damages; service occurred via diplomatic channels in 2009.
- Court may take judicial notice of related related Khobar Towers cases (Blais, Heiser I) for purposes of proof and facts.
- Court must determine whether retroactive application of §1605A is appropriate and whether punitive damages may be awarded without compensatory damages in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can punitive damages be pursued under §1605A in a related action? | Rimkus seeks punitive damages under §1605A following NDAA. | Only a proper §1605A action may proceed; retroactivity and procedure must be followed. | Yes; plaintiff may pursue punitive damages under §1605A. |
| Does Rimkus state a valid federal cause of action under §1605A? | Elements for §1605A satisfied by extrajudicial killing and material support. | Plaintiff must articulate theory of recovery beyond mere injury. | Yes; the action states a valid §1605A federal claim. |
| Is retroactive application of §1605A to this case appropriate? | NDAA allows retroactive application via related action mechanism. | Retroactive application limited or improper for pending actions. | Retroactive application permitted under §1083(c)(3). |
| May punitive damages be awarded where compensatory damages are not pursued in this action? | Punitive damages may be awarded independent of compensatory damages under §1605A. | Traditionally, punitive damages require compensatory damages as predicate. | Court permits punitive damages despite lack of separate compensatory claim. |
| What amount of punitive damages is appropriate given prior related awards? | Apply ratio from Heiser/Murphy line of decisions to avoid excess. | Avoid duplicative penalties; calibrate to deter with respect to prior awards. | Punitive damages set at $5,150,000, based on ratio to prior compensatory award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.Supp.2d 40 (D.D.C. 2006) (evidence supporting Iran/IRGC involvement in Khobar Towers)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp.2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (extensive evidence of Iranian support for terrorism; liability theories)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.Supp.2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (judicial notice approach; standards for FSIA punitive damages)
- In re Terrorism Litig., 659 F.Supp.2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (scope of 1605A; framework for punitive damages awards)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (Becker; method for multiple punitive awards; ratio approach ( Murphy ))
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 575 F.Supp.2d 181 (D.D.C. 2008) (earlier jurisdictional judgment on liability under former §1605(a)(7))
- Park v. Hyatt Corp., 436 F.Supp.2d 60 (D.D.C. 2006) (punitive damages treated as part of ad damnum when underlying claim exists)
- Kassman v. American Univ., 546 F.2d 1029 (D.C.Cir. 1976) (avoid double recovery principle)