Schwartz v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Civil Action No. 2018-1349
| D.D.C. | May 18, 2022Background:
- On November 19, 2015, a Hamas operative opened fire on a van in Israel carrying three U.S. nationals; Ezra Schwartz was killed and Michael Benzakein and Jason Geller were injured.
- Plaintiffs (the estate of Schwartz, Benzakein, Geller, and family members) sued the Islamic Republic of Iran under the FSIA state‑sponsored terrorism exception, alleging Iran materially supported Hamas in a manner that caused the attack.
- Iran was served but defaulted; the Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and referred damages issues to a Special Master.
- The Special Master evaluated economic and non‑economic damages and recommended awards; Plaintiffs did not object to those recommendations.
- The Court adopted the Special Master’s factual findings and awards: economic loss to Ezra Schwartz’s estate of $3,676,050; $1.5 million each for Benzakein and Geller for pain and suffering; individualized solatium awards for family members as recommended.
- The Court separately determined punitive damages (awarding punitive damages equal to twice total compensatory damages, apportioned pro rata) and awarded prejudgment interest on non‑economic and solatium awards but not on future economic (lost‑earnings) awards.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic damages for Ezra Schwartz’s estate | Forensic accountant (Wolf) calculates $3,676,050 in lost earnings using accepted methodology | Iran defaulted — no opposition | Adopted Wolf’s report; awarded $3,676,050 (future economic loss) |
| Pain & suffering for Benzakein and Geller | Each seeks $1.5M based on eyewitness trauma, ongoing psychological injuries, and limited physical injuries | Iran defaulted — no opposition | Awarded $1.5M to each (consistent with precedent for severe emotional injury) |
| Solatium for family members | Family testimony establishes close relationships and severe grief; apply Heiser baselines adjusted to specifics | Iran defaulted — no opposition | Adopted Special Master’s individualized solatium awards for each family member (guided by Heiser framework) |
| Punitive damages (multiplicand & multiplier) | Plaintiffs seek punitive damages; use total compensatory damages (including prejudgment interest) as multiplicand and an appropriate multiplier | Iran defaulted — no opposition | Awarded punitive damages = 2× total compensatory damages (multiplier of 2); punitive award apportioned relative to each plaintiff’s compensatory share; multiplier applied after adding prejudgment interest |
| Prejudgment interest: scope & calculation | Seek prejudgment interest on compensatory awards to fully compensate delay | Iran defaulted — no opposition | Awarded prejudgment interest on non‑economic pain & suffering and solatium awards (not on future economic losses); calculated using average annual prime rate since date of injury; included in base for punitive multiplier |
Key Cases Cited
- Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Republic, 167 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D.D.C. 2016) (FSIA imposes liability for economic losses from state‑sponsored terrorism)
- Fritz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 324 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D.D.C. 2018) (awarding prejudgment interest on non‑economic damages; guidance on punitive calculations)
- Hamen v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 407 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019) (use compensatory damages as multiplicand when plaintiffs lack evidence of defendant’s terrorist expenditures)
- Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (Heiser I) (baseline solatium ranges for spouses, parents, siblings)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (discussion of punitive damages purpose and substantial multipliers in extreme cases)
- Akins v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018) (awards for severe emotional injury without physical injury)
- Hekmati v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 278 F. Supp. 3d 145 (D.D.C. 2017) (pattern of state support and deterrence justify punitive awards)
- Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 892 F.3d 348 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (appellate guidance on solatium baselines and fact‑specific adjustments)
- Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 882 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2012) (use of multiplier approach for punitive damages)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 879 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012) (prejudgment interest as element of full compensation)