Wamai v. Republic of Sudan
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101322
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- On August 7, 1998 simultaneous suicide bombings destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam; hundreds were killed and many more injured. 196 plaintiffs (Kenyan and Tanzanian victims and immediate family) sued Sudan and Iranian entities; defendants were served but defaulted.
- This Court previously entered summary judgment on liability under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for defendants’ sponsorship/support of the attacks and held foreign-national U.S. government employees have federal causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A while foreign-national family members may recover under D.C. law.
- The Court appointed multiple special masters to fact-find and recommend damages; it adopts their factual findings and largely adopts their damages recommendations with specified adjustments to ensure conformity with district precedent and uniformity across plaintiffs.
- The Court awards compensatory damages (economic losses, pain-and-suffering, solatium) using established D.D.C. frameworks (Valore/Peterson), makes specific upward and downward adjustments in some instances, and allocates punitive damages equal to total compensatory damages.
- Prejudgment interest is awarded at the annual prime rate (using a multiplier of 2.26185 for 1998 damages through 2014) on compensatory awards (with limited exceptions for already discounted economic figures); punitive damages are excluded from prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government-employee victims may recover under FSIA §1605A | Victims (government employees) are entitled to federal damages for personal injury and wrongful death caused by state-sponsored terrorism | Defendants failed to appear (defaulted) and had no opposing factual/legal showings | Court holds government-employee plaintiffs have federal causes of action under §1605A and may recover compensatory damages |
| Whether foreign-national family members may recover and under what law | Family members claim solatium for intentional infliction of emotional distress | Defendants defaulted; potential argument limiting recovery to narrowly defined classes | Court applies D.C. law to family members lacking an FSIA cause of action and awards solatium consistent with D.D.C. frameworks (Peterson/Valore) |
| Proper framework and amounts for pain-and-suffering and compensatory awards | Plaintiffs urge application of established D.D.C. terrorism-damages grid (baseline and upward/downward departures) and special masters’ factual findings | Defendants offered no contrary framework (default) | Court adopts Valore/Peterson framework: tiered pain-and-suffering awards ($1.5M–$7.5M+), adjusts some special-master recommendations for uniformity |
| Treatment of solatium (who qualifies and quantum) | Immediate family seek statutory/ common-law solatium awards (spouses, parents, children, siblings) per Peterson grid | Defendants defaulted; potential challenges would include scope and excessive awards | Court awards solatium per Peterson: deceased-spouse $8M, parents $5M, siblings $2.5M; injured-victim family smaller amounts; excludes persons not alive at attack and limits awards so solatium does not exceed victim pain-and-suffering |
| Whether punitive damages and prejudgment interest are appropriate and how to calculate them | Plaintiffs seek punitive damages to punish/deter and prejudgment interest at prime rate on compensatory awards | Defendants offered no opposition in default | Court awards punitive damages equal to total compensatory damages and prejudgment interest at annual prime rate (multiplier applied), excluding punitive damages from interest calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 826 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2011) (prior liability and FSIA standing discussion adopted)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (articulating D.D.C. framework for pain-and-suffering awards in terrorism cases)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (solatium grid and related awards framework)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 879 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012) (punitive-damages factors and FSIA damages principles)
- Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 425 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2006) (pain-before-death compensatory guidelines)
- Davis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 882 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2012) (limiting solatium recovery to persons alive at time of attack)
- Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 84 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (approving use of the 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 methodology)
- Beer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 789 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2011) (affirming punitive damages award principle equal to compensatory damages in analogous context)