Estate of Brown v. Islamic Republic of Iran

872 F. Supp. 2d 37, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91580, 2012 WL 2562368
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJuly 3, 2012
DocketNo. 08-cv-531 (RCL)
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 872 F. Supp. 2d 37 (Estate of Brown v. Islamic Republic of Iran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of Brown v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 872 F. Supp. 2d 37, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91580, 2012 WL 2562368 (D.D.C. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.

I. Introduction

This action arises out of the devastating 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. The attack decimated the facility, killed 241 U.S. servicemen and left countless others wounded, and caused injuries to the servicemen who are a part of this action. The servicemen, joined by various family members, now bring suit against defendant Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”). Their action is brought pursuant to the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., which was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (“NDAA”). Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 1083, 122 Stat. 3, 338^4 (2008). That provision, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, provides “a federal right of action against foreign states” that sponsor terrorist acts. Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 784 F.Supp.2d 1, 4 (D.D.C.2011) (quoting reference omitted).

II. Liability

On December 16, 2009, this Court took judicial notice of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, which also concerns the Marine barracks bombing, and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against Iran and MOIS with respect to all issues of liability. Brown v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 08-cv-531 (D.D.C. Feb. 1, 2010), EOF No. 30 (citing Peterson, 264 F.Supp.2d 46 (D.D.C.2003) (.Peterson /)). This Court then referred this action to a special master for consideration of plaintiffs’ claims for damages. Id. at 2. Since the issue of liability has been previously settled, this Court now turns to examine the damages awards recommended by the special master.

III. Damages

Damages available under the FSIA-created cause of action “include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and [41]*41punitive damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Accordingly, those who survived the attack may recover damages for their pain and suffering, as well as any other economic losses caused by their injuries; estates of those who did not survive can recover economic losses stemming from wrongful death of the decedent; family members can recover solatium for their emotional injury; and all plaintiffs can recover punitive damages. Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.Supp.2d 52, 82-83 (D.D.C. 2010).

“To obtain damages against defendants in an FSIA action, the plaintiff must prove that the consequences of the defendants’ conduct were ‘reasonably certain (i.e., more likely than not) to occur, and must prove the amount of the damages by a reasonable estimate consistent with this [Circuit’s] application of the American rule on damages.’ ” Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F.Supp.2d 105, 115-16 (D.D.C.2005) (quoting Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680, 681 (D.C.Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted)). As discussed in Peterson II, plaintiffs have proven that the defendants’ commission of acts of extrajudicial killing and provision of material support - and resources for such killing was reasonably certain to — and indeed intended to — cause injury to plaintiffs. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Peterson II), 515 F.Supp.2d 25, 37 (D.D.C.2007).

The Court hereby ADOPTS, just as it did in Peterson II, Valore, Bland, Anderson, O’Brien, and Davis, all facts found by and recommendations made by the special master relating to the damages suffered by all plaintiffs in this case. Id. at 52-53; Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 84-87; Bland v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 831 F.Supp.2d 150, 154 (D.D.C.2011); see also Anderson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 839 F.Supp.2d 263 (D.D.C.2012); O’Brien v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 853 F.Supp.2d 44 (D.D.C.2012); Davis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 882 F.Supp.2d 7, No. 07-cv-1302 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2012), 2012 WL 1059700. However, if the special master has deviated from the damages framework that this Court has applied in previous cases, “those amounts shall be altered so as to conform with the respective award amounts set forth” in the framework. Id. The final damages awarded to each plaintiff are contained in the table located within the separate Order and Judgment issued this date, and this Court discusses below any alterations it makes to the special master recommendations.

A. Pain and Suffering

Assessing appropriate damages for physical injury or mental disability can depend upon a myriad of factors, such as “the severity of the pain immediately following the injury, the length of hospitalization, and the extent of the impairment that will remain with the victim for the rest of his or her life.” Peterson II, 515 F.Supp.2d at 25 n. 26 (citing Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.Supp.2d 40, 59 (D.D.C.2006)). In Peterson II, this Court adopted a general procedure for the calculation of damages that begins with the baseline assumption that persons suffering substantial injuries in terrorist attacks are entitled to $5 million in compensatory damages. Id. at 54. In applying this general approach, this Court has explained that it will “depart upward from this baseline to $7-$12 million in more severe instances of physical and psychological pain, such as where victims suffered relatively more numerous and severe injuries, were rendered quadriplegic, partially lost vision and hearing, or were mistaken for dead,” Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 84, and will “depart downward to $2-$3 million where victims suffered only minor shrapnel injuries [42]*42or minor injury from small-arms fire,” id. When a victim suffers severe emotional injury without physical injury, this Court has typically awarded the victim $1.5 million. Id. at 84-85.

After reviewing the special master reports, the Court finds that the special master correctly applied the damages framework outlined in Peterson II and Valore, and ADOPTS all of the special master awards for pain and suffering.

B. Economic Loss

In addition to pain and suffering, several plaintiffs who survived the attack have proven to the satisfaction of the special master, and thus to the satisfaction of the Court, lost wages resulting from permanent and debilitating injuries suffered in the attack or loss of accretions to the estate resulting from the wrongful death of decedents in the attack. See Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 85. The Court therefore ADOPTS without modification the damages awarded for economic loss recommended by the special master.

C. Solatium

This Court developed a standardized approach for FSIA intentional infliction of emotional distress, or solatium, claims in Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Heching v. Syrian Arab Republic
District of Columbia, 2025
Swinney v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District of Columbia, 2025
Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District of Columbia, 2025
Stearns v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District of Columbia, 2025
Henkin v. Iran
District of Columbia, 2024
Pautsch v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District of Columbia, 2024
Ben-Yishai v. Syrian Arab Republic
District of Columbia, 2022
Sheikh v. Republic of the Sudan
District of Columbia, 2020
Ewan v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District of Columbia, 2020
Bova v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District of Columbia, 2020
Kinyua v. Republic of the Sudan
District of Columbia, 2020
Rezaian v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District of Columbia, 2019
Salzman v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District of Columbia, 2019
Lelchook v. Syrian Arab Republic
District of Columbia, 2019
Rachel Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran
892 F.3d 348 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran
228 F. Supp. 3d 64 (District of Columbia, 2017)
Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Republic
167 F. Supp. 3d 22 (District of Columbia, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
872 F. Supp. 2d 37, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91580, 2012 WL 2562368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-brown-v-islamic-republic-of-iran-dcd-2012.