Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66593
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege the 2006 Tel Aviv PIJ bombing was aided by Iran and Syria, under FSIA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception (1605A).
- The attack at the Rosh Ha’ir restaurant killed Daniel Wultz and injured his father, with other family members suffering emotional distress.
- Defendants include Iran (and MOIS) and Syrian state entities; plaintiffs seek monetary damages for personal injury, death, and emotional distress.
- The court previously defaulted Iranian defendants and held Syrian defendants in default; an evidentiary hearing was conducted to determine liability and damages.
- Court concludes there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A and waivers of sovereign immunity are satisfied, allowing a damages judgment.
- Daniel Wultz died from the bombing; other family members suffered substantial physical and psychological injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA 1605A provides jurisdiction and waives immunity | Wultz asserts jurisdiction exists under 1605A | Iran/Syria contest waiver or jurisdiction arguments | Jurisdiction and immunity waiver established; FSIA supports liability |
| Whether defendants’ acts constituted extrajudicial killing and provided material support | Defendants funded and aided PIJ causing the bombing | Defendants deny direct involvement or causation | Yes: extrajudicial killing and material support proven |
| Whether liability can be imposed under assault, battery, and intentional infliction of distress theories | Claims read to include these torts; presence doctrine caveat applies | Limited presence prevents some solatium claims | Affirmative: theories apply; Abraham's presence not required for all claims; some claims survive |
| What damages are recoverable and how should they be calculated | Seek pain and suffering, economic loss, solatium, and punitive damages | Limit damages within FSIA framework and precedent | Damages awarded: $8M Daniel pain, $5M Tuly pain, $7M solatium (Sheryl), $3.5M solatium (Amanda), $2,568,634 economic loss; $300M punitive |
| Whether prejudgment interest is appropriate | Interest should accompany damages as complete compensation | Interest not appropriate for solatium; limited for other damages | Prejudgment interest denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (courts must assess evidence before default judgments)
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (evidence-based approach to damages and causation)
- In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (framework for FSIA liability and damages)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (agency/operational control theory of liability)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009) (solatium framework and presence considerations)
- Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008) (punitive damages in state-sponsored terrorism cases)
- Acosta v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2008) (punitive damages against Iran for terrorism incidents)
- Baker v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya, 775 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2011) (FSIA punitive damages framework and precedent)