Stansell v. Republic of Cuba
217 F. Supp. 3d 320
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- On Feb. 13, 2003 a FARC unit shot down a U.S.-chartered counter-narcotics aircraft in Colombia; four Americans were aboard. The plane crashed; Tom Janis and a Colombian passenger were executed at the crash site; Keith Stansell, Marc Gonsalves, and Thomas Howes were seized and held by the FARC for 1,967 days and subjected to torture and inhumane conditions.
- Plaintiffs allege Cuba provided material support to the FARC (safe haven, training, weapons, logistical and communications support, facilitation via Venezuela), enabling the aircraft attack, Janis’s extrajudicial killing, and the long-term hostage-taking and torture.
- Plaintiffs filed suit under the FSIA terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c), seeking damages for pain and suffering (the three former hostages) and solatium damages (Janis’s widow and children). Cuba did not appear; the clerk entered default and Plaintiffs moved for default judgment.
- The court took judicial notice of related criminal stipulations and State Department reports; Plaintiffs effected service under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3). The suit was timely under FSIA time limits.
- The court found Plaintiffs proved: (1) Cuba was a designated state sponsor of terrorism during the relevant period; (2) the FARC committed aircraft sabotage, extrajudicial killing, hostage-taking, and torture; (3) Cuba provided material support to the FARC that proximately enabled those acts; and (4) the court therefore has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and awarded damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA §1605A abrogates Cuba's sovereign immunity for these acts | Cuba was a state sponsor of terrorism during the attacks and materially supported the FARC, so FSIA §1605A applies | (No appearance; default) | Court: FSIA terrorism exception applies (Cuba designated during the period) and subject-matter jurisdiction exists |
| Whether service and personal jurisdiction were proper under 28 U.S.C. §1608 | Service by clerk to Cuban MFA under §1608(a)(3) was effected and returned signed | (No appearance) | Court: Service was proper; personal jurisdiction established |
| Whether Plaintiffs established liability (causation and theory of recovery) | Cuba’s material support proximately caused aircraft sabotage, torture, hostage-taking and Janis’s killing; tort theories (battery, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress/solatium) apply | (No appearance) | Court: Plaintiffs proved acts by FARC, Cuba’s material support, and causation under common-law tort principles; Cuba liable to all plaintiffs |
| Appropriate damages for hostages and family solatium | Per-diem approach plus lump-sum for extreme suffering; reasonable comparators justify large awards | (No appearance) | Court: Awarded each former hostage $44,670,000 (per diem $19,670,000 for 1,967 days + $25,000,000 lump sum); widow $12,000,000; each child $5,000,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Republic, 167 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D.D.C. 2016) (default-judgment and FSIA proof standards)
- Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (default judgment available when adversary process halted)
- Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (trial court discretion on FSIA evidentiary showing)
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (need to articulate legal theory of recovery under FSIA)
- Valencia v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (using state tort principles to satisfy §1605A causation)
- Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (application of state tort principles in FSIA cases)
- Levin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (false imprisonment and solatium frameworks)
- Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic, 908 F. Supp. 2d 216 (D.D.C. 2012) (per diem and lump-sum awards in hostage cases)
- Massie v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 592 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2008) (compensatory framework for captivity awards)
- Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 384 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D.D.C. 2005) (per-diem plus lump-sum approach)
- Flanagan v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 87 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2015) (solatium analysis)
- Belkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 667 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009) (collecting solatium awards)
- Van Beneden v. Al-Sanusi, 709 F.3d 1165 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (legal representatives may continue FSIA claims on behalf of deceased plaintiffs)