UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AUGUST CABRERA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 19-3835 (JDB)
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,
Defendant.
MARK ZAMBON, et al.,
v.
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Civil Action No. 18-2065 (JDB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Between 2006 and 2019, a terrorist syndicate comprising, among other groups, al-Qaeda, the
Taliban, and the Haqqani Network (the “Syndicate”) perpetrated numerous terrorist attacks against
American servicemembers and civilians in Afghanistan. Victims of those attacks and their family
members brought these coordinated suits against the Islamic Republic of Iran under the terrorism
exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, alleging that Iran
provided material support for extrajudicial killings to the Syndicate. The Court now addresses the
claims of 125 of those plaintiffs, spanning thirty-three separate attacks (“Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs”).
I. Background
On July 19, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion setting out a framework for
analyzing the attacks at issue in Cabrera and Zambon, as well as plaintiffs’ related claims. See Cabrera 1 v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Cabrera I”), Civ. A. No. 19-3835 (JDB), 2022 WL 2817730 (D.D.C. July
19, 2022). In laying out this framework, the Court analyzed the claims of twenty-three plaintiffs
relating to eleven attacks (“bellwether plaintiffs” and “bellwether attacks”). Id. at *1. The Court
determined that “the Syndicate committed all eleven attacks,” “Iran’s material support substantially
contributed to the Syndicate’s ability to do so,” and Iran’s support was the proximate cause of the
deaths and injuries that formed the basis for the bellwether plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at *15; see id. at *41
(“[P]laintiffs’ injuries were not only foreseeable: they were the intended result of Iran’s support.”).
The Court then determined that each bellwether plaintiff was entitled to recover under the
FSIA’s “private right of action against state sponsors of terrorism for plaintiffs who are United States
nationals, members of the armed forces, government employees or contractors, or legal representatives
of those people,” which authorizes suits “‘for personal injury or death caused by’ acts including
extrajudicial killing and hostage taking.” Id. at *41–42 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)). Immediate
family members of victims—and functional equivalents of immediate family members—were entitled
to recover “solatium awards,” which offer compensation for “the mental anguish, bereavement, and
grief that those with a close personal relationship to a decedent experience as the result of the
decedent’s death, as well as the harm caused by the loss of the decedent’s society and comfort.” Id.
(cleaned up). On May 16, 2023, the Court held that additional plaintiffs associated with the bellwether
attacks were entitled to recover solatium awards and awarded damages and prejudgment interest to
each plaintiff associated with the bellwether attacks. See Cabrera v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civ. A.
No. 19-3835 (JDB), 2023 WL 3496303 (“Cabrera II”), at *4–12 (D.D.C. May 16, 2023).
The Court also entered a separate Order adopting an administrative plan to “govern further
proceedings as to the damages awards for the plaintiffs associated with Tranche 1 in this litigation.”
Order Adopting Admin. Plan Concerning Special Masters [ECF No. 128] (“Admin. Plan”) at 1. The
Court instructed the special masters to assess each family-member plaintiff’s standing under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1605A(c), which, as relevant here, requires each plaintiff to (1) be a U.S. national, and (2) “prove 2 that they are an immediate family member, or the functional equivalent, of an individual killed or
physically injured.” Admin Plan at 2–3. Then, the special masters would recommend findings of fact
on “the scope of each plaintiff’s compensatory damages . . . guided by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1605A, this Court’s [July 19, 2022] Memorandum Opinion, and any further orders that this Court may
enter.” Id. at 3 (cleaned up).
The Court appointed David L. Broom, Christopher A. Byrne, Professor Eric D. Green, Paul G.
Griffin, Shelby R. Grubbs, Lester J. Levy, Dr. Susan Meek, Brad Pigott, Professor Stephen Allan
Saltzburg, and Professor C. Jackson Williams as special masters. Order Appointing Special Masters
[ECF No. 129]. The special masters submitted their reports on August 1, 2023. See Afghanistan-
Based Pls.’ Mot. For Default J. for Tranche 1 Pls. [ECF No. 231] (“Mot.”), Exs. 1–10. The Court now
considers the claims of 125 plaintiffs assigned to Special Master Broom, each of whom is associated
with a service member who was killed in the attacks at issue.
II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Liability1
This Court previously found that (1) a terrorist syndicate operated in Afghanistan during the
relevant time period of 2008–2017; (2) Iran provided material support for that syndicate; and (3) the
syndicate was responsible for each of the bellwether attacks in this case. Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730,
at *6–27. The Court now finds that the syndicate was likewise responsible for the attacks against the
U.S. servicemembers associated with the Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs.
From at least 2006 to 2019, multiple terrorist groups—including the Taliban, the Haqqani
Network, the Kabul Attack Network, and al-Qaeda—made up a terrorist “syndicate” in Afghanistan.
The syndicate shared close strategic, tactical, and operational coordination, as well as a common goal:
re-establishing the Islamic Emirate by driving the United States and its allies out of Afghanistan
1 Under the FSIA, a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant where the court has subject matter jurisdiction and the defendant has been served. GSS Grp., Ltd. v. Nat’l Port Auth., 680 F.3d 805, 811 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b)). Plaintiffs successfully served Iran through the diplomatic process. Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *33. Accordingly, so long as the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, it also has personal jurisdiction over Iran. 3 through the killing and wounding of American troops. Id. at *6. Iran—a designated state sponsor of
terrorism—provided material support to the Syndicate in the form of weapons, training, financial
support, and safe haven. Id. at *9–12. In its earlier Opinion, the Court identified regions in which
particular syndicate terrorist groups operated during specific time periods. See id. at *13–15
(identifying Southern Afghanistan, Loya Paktia, Kabul Province, Eastern Afghanistan, North Central
Afghanistan, Western Afghanistan, and Southeastern Afghanistan). The Court now finds that the
syndicate was responsible for each of the attacks associated with the Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs.
The relevant attacks are as follows:
1. November 2, 2007 Complex Attack, Uruzagan Province 2. June 26, 2008 Complex Attack, Wardak Province 3. August 22, 2008 IED Attack, Ghazni Province 4. January 9, 2009 IED Attack, Zabul Province 5. July 22, 2009 IED Attack, Zabul Province 6. August 2, 2009 IED Attack, Wardak Province 7. August 7, 2009 IED Attack, Wardak Province 8. September 12, 2009 IED Attack, Wardak Province 9. September 24, 2009 IED Attack, Zabul Province 10. October 1, 2009 Infantry Attack, Logar Province 11. November 13, 2009 IED Attack, Wardak Province 12. November 23, 2009 IED Attack, Khost Province 13. January 28, 2010 IED Attack, Uruzgan Province 14. May 6, 2010 Indirect Fire Attack, Wardak Province 15. May 14, 2010 Complex Attack, Logar Province 16. June 11, 2010 Complex Attack, Logar Province 17. June 23, 2010 Complex Attack, Logar Province 18. July 6, 2010 IED Attack, Zabul Province 19. July 14, 2010 IED Attack, Zabul Province 20. July 18, 2010 IED Attack, Zabul Province 21. August 31, 2010 IED Attack, Logar Province 22. November 27, 2010 Infantry Attack, Wardak Province 23. February 28, 2011 IED Attack, Wardak Province 24. August 3, 2011 IED Attack, Wardak Province 25. September 27, 2011 Indirect Fire Attack, Logar Province 26. April 22, 2012 IED Attack, Ghazni Province 27. July 8, 2012 IED Attack, Wardak Province 28. July 13, 2012 IED Attack, Zabul Province 29. July 22, 2012 Complex/IED Attack, Logar Province 30. September 26, 2012 Complex Attack, Logar Province 31. March 11, 2013 Insider Attack, Wardak Province 32. April 6, 2013 Suicide Attack, Zabul Province 33. July 23, 2013 Suicide Attack, Wardak Province 4 The Court has already held that syndicate terrorist groups “likely” or “very likely” maintained
operational dominance in each of these provinces during the time of these attacks, with one exception:
the April 6, 2013 attack in Zabul. See id. The Court previously found that the Taliban “very likely
had operational dominance” in Zabul from 2008 to 2012, id.; the Court now credits Dr. Gartenstein-
Ross’s report that the Taliban “continued to demonstrate its operational dominance even after 2012 by
committing numerous attacks in 2013,” see Ex. 11 Expert Witness Report of Dr. Daveed Gartenstein-
Ross (Apr. 3, 2023) [ECF No. 231-11] at 51. The Court thus concludes that Iran is liable for each of
the above-listed attacks.
III. Standing
To satisfy the standing requirements of the FSIA’s private right of action, each plaintiff must
be a U.S. national (or otherwise meet certain criteria not relevant here) and must be an immediate
family member, or the functional equivalent, of an individual killed or injured in a relevant attack.
Admin Plan at 2–3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)). Special Master Broom determined that each plaintiff
is a U.S. citizen and that each of these plaintiffs was an immediate family member, or the functional
equivalent, of a victim killed in one of the above-listed attacks.
He thoroughly recounted the devastating impacts of the syndicate’s attacks on the associated
family-member plaintiffs, and the Court has no doubt that each associated family-member plaintiff
suffered emotional distress as a result of the syndicate’s attacks on their loved ones. Thus, for the
reasons set forth in Cabrera, 2023 WL 3496303, at *4–7, the Court is satisfied that—with one
exception—each of the Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs has met the standing requirements for the private
cause of action in § 1605A(c) and is entitled to seek solatium damages under that provision.
As this Court explained in Cabrera II, “children born following terrorist attacks are not entitled
to damages under the FSIA.” 2023 WL 3496303, at *7 (citing cases); see also Davis v. Islamic
5 Republic of Iran, 882 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2012). 2 Plaintiff A.M.P. was born three months after
the attack that killed her father, PFC Michel Pridham Jr. See Mot., Ex. A, Compendium of Non-
Bellwether Pls.’ Damages Decls. Provided to Special Master David L. Broom [ECF No. 231-1] (“Pls.’
Decls.”) at 517. A.M.P.’s claims do not present any special circumstances that might warrant departure
from this Court’s prior approach. Accordingly, A.M.P. lacks standing to bring a solatium claim under
§ 1605A(c), and the Court will dismiss her claims.
IV. Solatium Damages
Section 1605A of the FSIA authorizes family-member plaintiffs to seek solatium damages. 28
U.S.C. § 1605A(c). 3 Solatium claims are “functionally identical to claims for intentional infliction of
emotional distress,” and are “intended to compensate persons for mental anguish, bereavement and
grief that those with a close personal relationship to a decedent experience . . . as well as the harm
caused by the loss of the decedent’s society and comfort.” Spencer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 71 F.
Supp. 3d 23, 27 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In granting these damages, the
Court’s “primary consideration is to ensure that ‘individuals with similar injuries receive similar
awards.’” Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *43 (quoting Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 77 F.
Supp. 3d 57, 70 (D.D.C. 2015)).
Because solatium damages “are by their very nature unquantifiable,” Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at
2 The Court thus dismissed the claims brought by K.E.F.V., who was born two months after the attack that killed her father, because she lacked standing to bring claims under the private right of action in § 1605A(c). Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *7. On appeal, counsel for K.E.F.V. advocates—for the first time—that plaintiffs who are in utero at the time of an attack may recover solatium damages under the FSIA. See Brief for Pl.-Appellant at 15–44, Cabrera v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 23-7076 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 22, 2023). If the D.C. Circuit agrees that in-utero plaintiffs have standing under the FSIA, this Court would conclude that A.M.P. is entitled to an award in the amount of $2.5 million. While A.M.P. has been deprived of her father’s parental care and support, she has not suffered the same mental anguish as most plaintiffs who experienced the loss of a parent. A 50% downward departure is thus appropriate here and maintains consistency among awards. See Goldstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 383 F. Supp. 3d 15, 22–23 (D.D.C. 2019) (50% downward departure for brother born two days after attack). 3 Section 1605 further authorizes economic damages, damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages. § 1605A(c). The Court previously concluded that “awarding substantial punitive damages” is appropriate but will defer ruling on punitive damages until the compensatory damage awards of all plaintiffs in this case have been decided. Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *56–57. 6 72, this Court has looked to prior decisions for guidance and “endorsed” the Peterson II framework,
which judges in this District rely upon as a benchmark of baseline awards for victims of terrorist attacks
and their families, Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *47 (citing Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran
(“Peterson II”), 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 52 (D.D.C. 2007)). Under the Peterson II framework, spouses of
deceased victims receive $8 million, parents and children of deceased victims receive $5 million, and
siblings of deceased victims receive $2.5 million. Peterson II, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 52. This Court has
thus awarded qualifying plaintiffs the Peterson II baselines, granting upward and downward variances
to certain plaintiffs based on individualized circumstances. See, e.g., Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303,
at *9 (granting an upward adjustment where plaintiff experienced “particularly brutal suffering”); id.
at *10 (varying downward for awards to older family members, whose amount of time suffering “is
comparatively less than the suffering of other family-member victims”).
Special Master Broom has considered the evidence presented by family-member plaintiffs and
recommended damages awards. Most of the recommendations are in line with the Peterson II baselines
but some reflect modest variances. The Court will adopt the recommendations of the Special Master
except as outlined below.
A. Upward Variances for Exceptionally Severe Harm
Because the Peterson II baseline awards “take into consideration the likelihood of serious
detrimental effects from these events on families,” Pennington v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civ. A. No.
19-796 (JEB), 2022 WL 168261, at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2022), vacated in part, 2022 WL 18814284
(D.D.C. May 3, 2022), courts normally only award upward departures for “an unusual circumstance
beyond the ordinary anguish that results from losing a family member,” Selig v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 573 F. Supp. 3d 40, 66 (D.D.C. 2021). The Court now briefly describes a few plaintiffs who
experienced unusual circumstances warranting upward departures from the Peterson II baselines.
Special Master Broom recommended awarding Mary Hilton (the wife of SFC Matthew Hilton)
$9.6 million in solatium damages due to her “diagnosed PTSD and her described periodic treatment 7 therefor with the Veterans Administrat[ion].” Mot., Ex. 1 [ECF No. 231-1] (“Broom Rep.”) at *20–
21. The Court disagrees with Special Master Broom’s recommendation of a 20% upward variance.
Although Ms. Hilton experienced serious detrimental effects, courts “adhere[] closely to the Peterson
II framework in assessing solatium damages,” Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *48, and the Peterson
II framework considers such effects, see id. (declining to vary upward for spouse who suffered post-
traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”)). But the Court will grant a modest upward variance of 5%, due to
the unique circumstance surrounding her husband’s death. Ms. Hilton, like her husband, served in the
U.S. military, and deployed to Iraq in 2007. Pls.’ Decls. at 10. Ms. Hilton was one month away from
completing her deployment when SFC Hilton was deployed to Afghanistan. Id. SFC Hilton was killed
one month after she returned home; because of their deployment timing, Ms. Hilton last saw her
husband when she deployed in 2007. Id. Because of this unusual circumstance, the Court will award
Ms. Hilton $8.4 million in solatium damages.
Special Master Broom also recommended awarding $9.6 million to Veronica Marie Adkinson,
the wife of SSG Vinson Adkinson. Broom Rep. at *244. Ms. Adkinson credibly describes her multiple
suicide attempts in the years following her husband’s death. Pls.’ Decls. at 572. The Court finds that
given her multiple suicide attempts, the impact on Ms. Adkinson appears to be greater than that
experienced by a spouse in a typical FSIA case. Accordingly, the Court will award Ms. Adkinson
$8.75 million in solatium damages.
Special Master Broom recommended an award of $6.25 million to Songmi Kietzmann, who
was hospitalized after the death of her son, SPC Justin Horsley. See Broom Rep. at *346; Pls.’ Decls.
at 833. The Court finds that Ms. Kietzmann has experienced a greater-than-average impact, but that a
25% enhancement here strays too far from the Peterson II framework. The Court will award her $5.5
million in solatium damages, which constitutes a 10% enhancement.
Special Master Broom recommended an upward variance of 20% for Ashley Michelle Harris,
the twin sister of PFC Devon Harris. Broom Rep. at *258–59; see Pls.’ Decls. at 638. The Court 8 acknowledges that Ms. Harris has experienced unique pain due to the death of her twin brother—
particularly as it relates to their shared July 3 birthday—but finds that a 10% enhancement, rather than
a 20% enhancement, is appropriate. The Court will therefore award Ms. Harris $2.75 million in
solatium damages.
Special Master Broom did not recommend an upward variance for Benjamin Gabriel Horsley,
Broom Rep. at *347, but the Court finds it appropriate to award him a 10% enhancement as well. Mr.
Horsley is SPC Horsley’s twin brother and faces greater hardships than typically expected for a
sibling’s death: he credibly describes that his “mother cries when she sees [his] face and hears [his]
voice, as they remind her” of SPC Horsley. Pls.’ Decls. at 842. Due to this circumstance, the Court
will award Mr. Horsley $2.75 million in solatium damages.
B. Older Family Members
The Court previously issued slight downward variances to older family-member plaintiffs
whose amount of time suffering with the loss of their loved one was “comparatively less than the
suffering of other family-member victims.” Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *51 (20% downward
variance for foster father who the Court estimated was “at least in his sixties” at the time of the attack);
see also Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *10 (20% downward variance for grandfather who was 69
years old at the time of grandson’s death). To maintain consistency among the awards of similarly
situated individuals, the Court will vary downward for plaintiffs in comparable situations. 4
The Court therefore concludes that it is appropriate to provide a 20% reduction to Annette
Parrish, who was sixty-six years old when her grandson SSG Edward Bernard Smith died. 5 Broom
Rep. at *108. The Court will award Ms. Parrish $4 million in solatium damages. The Court will find
similarly for the parents of CPL Christopher Coffland. At the time of CPL Coffland’s death, his
4 Special Master Broom recommended the Peterson II baseline for each of the plaintiffs listed in Section III.B. 5 Ms. Parrish was SSG Smith’s functional equivalent of a mother. 9 mother, Antoinette Mary Francis Coffland, and his father, David Lee Coffland, were both seventy-five
years old. Broom Rep. at *133; Pls.’ Decls. at 292, 300. The Court will issue 20% downward
departures for each and will award $4 million in solatium damages to Ms. Coffland and Mr. Coffland.
The Court will grant the same $4 million solatium awards to Michael Ramos Kisseloff and
Milagros D. Kisseloff, who were seventy-three years old and seventy years old at the time of their son
SGT Denis Kisseloff’s death. Broom Rep. at *172–73. And the Court will also award $4 million in
solatium damages to Tennyson Charles Harris, the father of PFC Harris, who was sixty-five years old
when his son died. Id. at *255–56. Each of these awards maintains consistency with the awards given
to similarly situated plaintiffs.
In addition to issuing downward departures for older family-member plaintiffs in Cabrera II,
the Court made similar adjustments for the estates of family-member plaintiffs who suffered for shorter
periods of time. See id. at *10 (20% downward variance to estate of father who “passed away thirteen
years [after the attack], which is only slightly longer than the time that” older family-member plaintiffs
suffered). The Court will issue the same downward departure to the estate of Gladys Del Valle
Montanez. Although Ms. Del Valle Montanez was only forty-eight years old when her son, PFC Gil
Isai Morales Del Valle, was killed, she passed away in 2021, ten years after the attack. See Broom
Rep. at *284. The Court does not wish to understate the suffering Ms. Del Valle Montanez endured
after her son’s death, but because she passed away ten years later, the amount of time she suffered is
close to the amount of time the older family-member plaintiffs suffered. The Court will therefore
award her $4 million to maintain consistency among the awards.
C. Individuals with Less Close Relationships to Direct Victims
The Court previously held that “when determining solatium damages, it is necessary to consider
whether a family-member plaintiff’s relationship with a direct victim was further removed than
traditionally expected.” Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *10. Circumstances courts consider include
whether the family-member plaintiff lived with the victim, see id. (“Children who were living with 10 their parents are likely to feel the sting of loss more harshly than children who were not.” (cleaned up)),
and the time they had to develop their relationship, see id. at *11 (“S.B. never got to meet him or
develop a relationship with him.” (cleaned up)). The Court now addresses certain plaintiffs whose
relationships with the victim were further removed than traditionally expected.
1. Children of Direct Victims
Special Master Broom recommended an upward variance of 25% for Brent Robinson, the
stepson of SFC Hilton; the Court will instead issue a 10% downward departure. SFC Hilton met Mr.
Robinson for the first time when Mr. Robinson was fifteen years old, became Mr. Robinson’s stepfather
when Mr. Robinson was eighteen years old, and was killed when Mr. Robinson was twenty-three years
old. Pls.’ Decls. at 17. Despite the limited number of years that they shared, Mr. Robinson credibly
describes a “strong relationship” with SFC Hilton and refers to him as a “father figure.” Id. at 18.
Special Master Broom recommended an enhancement for Mr. Robinson due to “continuing distress,”
including “a belief that he suffers from PTSD, that he has vivid dreams of his father’s death which
prevent him from sleeping, a continuing belief that the Taliban took and have transmitted his father’s
body parts and other intrusive reminders of his father’s violent death.” Broom Rep. at *21.
But while the Court acknowledges the bond between Mr. Robinson and SFC Hilton, it is evident
that Mr. Robinson’s relationship with SFC Hilton was further removed than traditionally expected.
Even though the two appeared to have quickly bonded after meeting, SFC Hilton did not raise Mr.
Robinson. And in fact, despite considering SFC Hilton a father figure (which the Court does not
doubt), Mr. Robinson’s biological father was also present in his life. Pls.’ Decls. at 18. The Court will
only issue a downward departure of 10%, however, due to Mr. Robinson’s evident grief and the unusual
circumstance that Mr. Robinson believes his family has been receiving pieces of SFC Hilton’s body
parts over the years. Id. at 19. Accordingly, the Court will award Mr. Robinson $4.5 million in
The Court now discusses the minor children of SSG Rusty Christian. At the time of his death, 11 SSG Christian’s son G.J.C. was eleven months old and his daughter T.M.C. was three years old. Broom
Rep. at *144. Special Master Broom recommended an award of $3 million for G.J.C., and $4 million
for T.M.C. Id. at *144, *146. The Court agrees with the awards Special Master Broom recommended
but details its reasoning for clarity.
In its earlier Opinion, the Court applied a 40% downward variance for a three-month-old child
and a 30% downward variance for a three-year-old child. Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *11.
Consistent with that, the Court will vary downward by 40% for G.J.C. and will award him $3 million
in solatium damages. The Court will also vary downward by 30% for T.M.C., which would result in
a $3.5 million award. But the Court will then vary upwards for T.M.C., who has cut herself due to her
distress over the loss of her father. Pls.’ Decls. at 339. The Court will thus award her $4 million in
2. Parents of Direct Victims
While the Court previously considered whether a child plaintiff’s relationship with a direct
victim parent was further removed than traditionally expected, the Court considers the same factors
when determining solatium awards for parent plaintiffs due to child victims. The Court will now
address plaintiffs for whom a downward departure is warranted due to their more attenuated parental
relationship with the direct victim. 6
The Court will vary downward for the following stepparent plaintiffs who—while acting as the
“functional equivalent” of a parent—did not share as close a traditional child-parent relationship with
the victim. Tammy Renee Mays is SSG Chauncy Mays’s stepmother and views SSG Mays as the
“functional equivalent of a biological son.” Pls.’ Decls. at 680–81. Ms. Mays met SSG Mays when
he was approximately thirteen years old and SSG Mays lived with Ms. Mays and her husband for a
three-year period before his deployment. Id. at 680–81. While the Court acknowledges the seemingly
6 Special Master Broom recommended the baseline award of $5 million for each plaintiff listed in Subsection III.C.2. 12 strong relationship between Ms. Mays and her stepson, it will vary downward by 30%, resulting in an
award to Ms. Mays of $3.5 million in solatium damages.
The Court will issue greater departures for stepparents whose relationships appear further
removed. Jane Giselman Sparks, for example, considers her stepson SSG Orion Sparks “the functional
equivalent of [her] biological son,” Pls.’ Decls. at 893, and the victim’s brother Erik corroborates the
grief she suffered from SSG Sparks’s death, see id. at 877. But because Ms. Sparks only lived with
SSG Sparks approximately every other weekend for five years, id. at 893, the Court will vary
downward by 50% and will award Ms. Sparks $2.5 million in solatium damages. The Court reaches
the same conclusion for Jeanne M. Nichols, who became SPC Rob Nichols’s stepmother when he was
fifteen years old. See id. at 951. Although Ms. Nichols considers SPC Nichols the “functional
equivalent of her biological son,” SPC Nichols only lived with her and her husband on weekends and
in the summer. Id. at 950–51. The Court thus applies the same downward departure of 50% and will
award Ms. Nichols $2.5 million in solatium damages.
The Court next considers the claims of Rose Ann Crossman, who became SPC Wade Slack’s
stepmother when SPC Slack was only eight years old. The record does not clearly reflect how long
SPC Slack lived with his stepmother or the status of their relationship. Nonetheless, the record contains
evidence that Ms. Crossman considered SPC Slack “the functional equivalent of [her] biological son,”
Pls.’ Decls. at 382, and that she “grieves to this day over losing a child she loved dearly,” id. at 406, so
the Court will award her $3 million in solatium damages.
The Court will also vary downward for biological parents who had significantly less custody
of the direct victim. The Court first addresses David Reed, the father of SPC Jesse Reed. Mr. Reed
describes a very close relationship with his son, with whom he lived full time until his divorce when
SPC Reed was ten years old. Pls.’ Decls. at 533–34. SPC Reed then lived primarily with his mother,
though he saw Mr. Reed throughout the week and stayed with him on some weekends. Id. Due to the
diminished time together, the Court finds that a 10% departure is appropriate and will grant Mr. Reed 13 $4.5 million in solatium damages.
Michael Christian, the father of SSG Christian, credibly describes a strong relationship with his
son, but he stopped permanently living with SSG Christian three months after his birth, at which point
SSG Christian only stayed with him every other weekend. Pls.’ Decls. at 355–56. Although Mr.
Christian remained present in his son’s life, the Court finds it proper to award Mr. Christian $3.5
million in solatium damages (a 30% departure). The Court will grant the same award to Clarence
Joseph Metcalf, PFC Michael Metcalf’s father. Mr. Metcalf credibly describes a strong relationship
with his son, but the record appears to reflect that PFC Metcalf lived solely with his mother between
the ages of two and twenty-one. Id. at 743–44, 751–52. The Court will therefore vary downward by
30% and award Mr. Metcalf $3.5 million in solatium damages. Finally, the Court will award Sorainya
Harris (PFC Harris’s mother) the same award of $3.5 million in solatium damages: although Ms. Harris
credibly describes a close relationship with her son, she seemingly never had custody of him. Id. at
596–97, 604–05.
3. Spouses of Direct Victims
The Court will briefly address one spouse for whom the Court finds a modest departure is
warranted. Diedre Marie Spencer was married to PFC Pridham for two days before he left to his post
in Germany, and they spent two months together in Germany prior to his deployment. Pls.’ Decls. at
509. Special Master Broom recommended granting the Peterson II baseline of $8 million and the Court
does not wish to understate the “strong relationship” Ms. Spencer shared with her husband. Id. at 508.
Given, however, the limited amount of time they shared between their wedding and PFC Pridham’s
death, the Court will issue a downward departure of 20% and will award Ms. Spencer $6.4 million in
D. Peterson II Baselines
The Court now briefly describes three plaintiffs for whom Special Master Broom recommended
upward enhancements of 20%, but for whom the Court has decided to award the Peterson II baseline 14 amounts. The Court addresses each plaintiff in turn. Amanda Granado, the daughter of SFC Alejandro
Granado III, suffers from PTSD, anxiety, and panic attacks as a result of her father’s death. See Broom
Rep. at *67. The Court expresses its sympathy for Ms. Granado’s continued suffering. But although
Ms. Granado credibly describes “serious detrimental effects,” the Peterson II framework takes into
consideration such effects. Pennington, 2022 WL 168261, at *3. Accordingly, the Court finds that a
baseline award of $5 million in solatium damages aligns with the awards given to similarly situated
plaintiffs.
Shannon Fenton, the sister of SGT Joshua Rimer, dropped out of college and postponed her
wedding after her brother was killed. See Broom Rep. at *55–56. The Court notes that the record does
not make clear whether Ms. Fenton later returned to college. The record is clear, however, that Ms.
Fenton did not permanently cancel her wedding, but merely postponed it. See Pls.’ Decls. at 88. And
even if Ms. Fenton never returned to college, she has not presented circumstances that make her
situation unique compared to other family-member plaintiffs. The Court will thus award her $2.5
million in solatium damages.
Melissa A. Pucino, the sister of SSG Matthew Pucino, has suffered “evident continuing
emotional distress,” since the death of her brother. Broom Rep. at *413. The Court acknowledges Ms.
Pucino’s deep suffering, but her emotional distress is the type of “serious detrimental effects” the
Peterson II framework considers. Pennington, 2022 WL 168261, at *3. Because she has not
demonstrated “an unusual circumstance beyond the ordinary anguish that results from losing a family
member,” Selig, 573 F. Supp. 3d at 66, granting a 20% enhancement would not maintain consistency
among the awards. The Court will instead award her $2.5 million in solatium damages.
The Court now addresses two plaintiffs for whom Special Master Broom considered
recommending an upward variance, but ultimately concluded against such recommendation. The Court
agrees with Special Master Broom’s recommendations not to grant a 20% upward enhancement for
plaintiffs Samantha Shervon Williams and Zachary Douglas Sparks. Samantha Shervon Williams is 15 the sister of PFC Clarence Williams III, who was killed in 2012. Ms. Williams suffers from a mental
disability and now “struggles with confusion over [PFC Williams]’s absence.” Pls.’ Decls. at 795. But
without more evidence in the record “of her current circumstances or likeliness of future needs [with
which] to differentiate the impact of this FSIA case [from] others,” Broom Rep. at *323, the Court will
only award Ms. Williams the Peterson II baseline of $2.5 million in solatium damages.
Finally, Special Master Broom considered granting a 20% enhancement to Zachary Douglas
Sparks, the brother of SSG Sparks, given Sparks’s credible description of the impacts of his brother’s
death, which included becoming homeless. Broom Rep. at *362. But the Court agrees that the “record
is not specific enough” to differentiate his needs from those of other plaintiffs, id., and concludes that
Sparks has not presented the type of unusual circumstance that warrants an enhancement from the
baseline award. The Court will thus award Mr. Sparks $2.5 million in solatium damages.
* * *
In sum, the Court adopts the recommendations of Special Master Broom, with the only
deviations reflected above.
V. Prejudgment Interest
The Court previously concluded that “an award of prejudgment interest is appropriate” in this
case. Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *55; Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *12. The Court
calculated the bellwether plaintiffs’ “interest amount by following the D.C. Circuit’s recommendation
in Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 84 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1996),” Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at
*55, and will use the same methodology here. The prejudgment interest amounts for these associated
plaintiffs are reflected in the Appendix table.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that all but one of the plaintiffs considered by
Special Master Broom has standing to bring claims under the private right of action in 28 U.S.C. §
1605A(c). The Court will dismiss A.M.P.’s claims because she lacks standing as an after-born plaintiff. 16 The Court also largely adopts the special master’s recommendations for compensatory damages to each
eligible plaintiff, with the handful of modifications noted herein, and it will award prejudgment interest
to each plaintiff as reflected in the attached Appendix. A separate Order specifying each plaintiff’s
award will be issued on this date.
/s/ John D. Bates United States District Judge
Dated: February 29, 2024
17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
APPENDIX
This appendix includes the prejudgment interest multipliers calculated by the Court for the
associated plaintiffs and a table specifying each plaintiffs’ award before and after the addition of
prejudgment interest. As it did previously in Cabrera I and Cabrera II, the Court will use the Federal
Reserve’s data for the average annual prime rate in each year from the date of the respective attacks
through February 29, 2024. 1 Using the prime rates for the years from the date of the attack, and
discounting for the percentage of the year elapsed at the time of each attack, yields the following
multipliers: 2
1 This data is available on the Federal Reserve’s website. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., Data Download Program, https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Download.aspx?rel=H15&series (last accessed February 7, 2024). 2 Specifically, the Court calculated these multipliers—using SFC Johnny Walls as an example—as follows. First, the Court multiplied $1.00 by the prime rate in 2007 (8.05%); discounted that amount to reflect that approximately 16.2% of the year remained after November 2, 2007; and added that amount to $1.00, for a result of $1.013093. The Court then 18 Associated Direct Victims Attack Date Multiplier Walls November 2, 2007 1.955379 Hilton; Palmateer June 26, 2008 1.884794 Studer August 22, 2008 1.870234 Hernandez; Parsons January 9, 2009 1.835344 Rimer July 22, 2009 1.804615 Granado August 2, 2009 1.802873 Evans August 7, 2009 1.802080 Allen; Cox September 12, 2009 1.796379 Smith September 24, 2009 1.794477 Adams October 1, 2009 1.793369 Coffland November 13, 2009 1.786557 Pucino November 23, 2009 1.784973 Christian January 28, 2010 1.774659 Slack May 6, 2010 1.759624 Kisseloff May 14, 2010 1.758397 Rodriguez June 11, 2010 1.754101 Madden June 23, 2010 1.752260 Pridham July 6, 2010 1.750266 Reed July 14, 2010 1.749039 Bennedsen July 18, 2010 1.748425 Adkinson; Alcaraz August 31, 2010 1.741674 Harris November 27, 2010 1.728174 Mays February 28, 2011 1.714191 Del Valle August 3, 2011 1.691012 Siercks September 27, 2011 1.682840 Metcalf April 22, 2012 1.652508 Stambaugh; Williams July 8, 2012 1.641457 Ristau July 13, 2012 1.640739 Horsley July 22, 2012 1.639447 Gollnitz; Sparks September 26, 2012 1.629975 Schad March 11, 2013 1.606442 Smedinghoff April 6, 2013 1.602818 Nichols; Welch July 23, 2013 1.587765
Applying those multipliers, the Court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to the following
amounts as solatium or pain-and-suffering damages, plus prejudgment interest:
took that amount and multiplied it by the prime rate in 2008 (5.09%) and combined that amount with $1.013093, for a result of $1.064659. The Court continued this iterative process through February 29, 2024, resulting in a total multiplier of 1.955379. Because the attacks relevant to the associated plaintiffs were committed on thirty-three different dates, the Court repeated this process for each attack date. To approximate the 2024 prime rate, the Court averaged the prime rates for the past six years—approximately 5.06%—and again discounted the interest to reflect that only a portion of the year has elapsed as of February 29, 2024. See Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *55 n.46 (applying same methodology). 19 Pain and Suffering or Compensatory Damages Plus Plaintiff Solatium Damages Prejudgment Interest Harvey Lane Walls $2,500,000 $4,888,448 Mary Hilton $8,400,000 $15,832,270 Brent C. Robinson $4,500,000 $8,481,573 Jeanine Hilton $2,500,000 $4,711,985 Christopher Alexander Palmateer $2,500,000 $4,711,985 Marjorie Elizabeth Vail $2,500,000 $4,711,985 Crystal Dawn DeLeo $2,500,000 $4,675,585 Jessie Hernandez $5,000,000 $9,176,720 Cathy Ann Parsons $5,000,000 $9,176,720 Garland Richard Parsons $5,000,000 $9,176,720 Donna Jean Rimer $5,000,000 $9,023,075 James Howard Rimer $5,000,000 $9,023,075 Shannon Danielle Fenton $2,500,000 $4,511,538 Alejandro Olan Granado IV $5,000,000 $9,014,365 Hasson Ponce Granado $5,000,000 $9,014,365 Amanda Christine Granado $5,000,000 $9,014,365 Larissa Ann Barnhart $2,500,000 $4,505,200 Brittany Evans $2,500,000 $4,505,200 Crystal Nicole Evans $2,500,000 $4,505,200 Jonathan Dewayne Rogers $2,500,000 $4,505,200 Jerry Randall Evans Sr. $5,000,000 $9,010,400 Amy Lynette Allen $8,000,000 $14,371,032 Daniel Bruce Allen $5,000,000 $8,981,895 Rama Goodrich Allen $2,500,000 $4,490,948 Kim B. Cox $5,000,000 $8,981,895 Sharon J. Cox $5,000,000 $8,981,895 Shannon Butler $2,500,000 $4,490,948 Jamie Smith $8,000,000 $14,355,816 DeAnndrea Luney $5,000,000 $8,972,385 Deiontay Laundreek Welch $5,000,000 $8,972,385 Craig Anthony Smith $2,500,000 $4,486,193 Thelma Latrice Smith $2,500,000 $4,486,193 Steven Flowers Jr. $2,500,000 $4,486,193 Annette Parrish $4,000,000 $7,177,908 Jalane Adams $5,000,000 $8,966,845 Peter Adams $5,000,000 $8,966,845 Amanda Boone $2,500,000 $4,483,423 Antoinette Mary Francis Coffland $4,000,000 $7,146,228 David Lee Coffland Sr. $4,000,000 $7,146,228 20 Pain and Suffering or Compensatory Damages Plus Plaintiff Solatium Damages Prejudgment Interest Laurie Ann Bartlett $2,500,000 $4,466,393 Karen Ann Bresnahan $2,500,000 $4,466,393 Amber Jean Rogers $8,000,000 $14,197,272 G.J.C. $3,000,000 $5,323,977 T.M.C. $4,000,000 $7,098,636 Donna Ball $5,000,000 $8,873,295 Michael Christian $3,500,000 $6,211,307 James Franklin Ball $4,000,000 $7,098,636 Michael Aaron Christian $3,500,000 $6,211,307 Rose Ann Crossman $3,000,000 $5,278,872 Andrew Forester Slack $2,500,000 $4,399,060 Jesse Robert Slack $2,500,000 $4,399,060 Jonathan Hunter Slack $2,500,000 $4,399,060 Lauren Rachel Slack $2,500,000 $4,399,060 Jessica Jean Cook $2,500,000 $4,399,060 Aleksandr Cade Kisseloff $5,000,000 $8,791,985 Michael Ramos Kisseloff $4,000,000 $7,033,588 Milagros D. Kisseloff $4,000,000 $7,033,588 Leslie Rodriguez $8,000,000 $14,032,808 Raven George $5,000,000 $8,770,505 Martin E. Madden $5,000,000 $8,761,300 Pamela J. Madden $5,000,000 $8,761,300 Lindsey R. Madden $2,500,000 $4,380,650 Martin P. Madden $2,500,000 $4,380,650 Diedre Marie Spencer $6,400,000 $11,201,702 Heather L. Reed $8,000,000 $13,992,312 David Reed $4,500,000 $7,870,676 Tracy Bennedsen $5,000,000 $8,742,125 Scott Bennedsen $5,000,000 $8,742,125 Jamie Johanna Coates $2,500,000 $4,371,063 Veronica Marie Adkinson $8,750,000 $15,239,648 Alma Murphy $5,000,000 $8,708,370 Paul Murphy $5,000,000 $8,708,370 Tennyson Charles Harris $4,000,000 $6,912,696 Sorainya Harris $3,500,000 $6,048,609 Felicia Ann Harris $5,000,000 $8,640,870 Tiffany Dotson $2,500,000 $4,320,435 David L. Parker $2,500,000 $4,320,435 Ashley Michelle Harris $2,750,000 $4,752,479 21 Pain and Suffering or Compensatory Damages Plus Plaintiff Solatium Damages Prejudgment Interest Michael Rufus II $2,500,000 $4,320,435 Stephanie Rufus $2,500,000 $4,320,435 Alyson Overman Rodgers $5,000,000 $8,570,955 Thomas Pierce Mays $5,000,000 $8,570,955 Tammy Renee Mays $3,500,000 $5,999,669 Cody Cheyenne Mays $2,500,000 $4,285,478 Estate of Gladys Del Valle Montanez $4,000,000 $6,764,048 Renes Perez $5,000,000 $8,455,060 Kiara Crystal Perez Del Valle $2,500,000 $4,227,530 Georganne M. Siercks $8,000,000 $13,462,720 Gage Siercks $6,000,000 $10,097,040 G.S. $4,000,000 $6,731,360 Kimberly Metcalf $5,000,000 $8,262,540 Clarence Joseph Metcalf $3,500,000 $5,783,778 Mitchell L. Stambaugh $5,000,000 $8,207,285 Talisa Shervon Williams $5,000,000 $8,207,285 Clarence Williams Jr. $5,000,000 $8,207,285 Abrill Renee Williams $2,500,000 $4,103,643 Samantha Shervon Williams $2,500,000 $4,103,643 Randy Ristau $5,000,000 $8,203,695 Suzanne Ristau $5,000,000 $8,203,695 Christopher Powers $2,500,000 $4,101,848 Halie Ristau $2,500,000 $4,101,848 Songmi Kietzmann $5,500,000 $9,016,959 Benjamin Gabriel Horsley $2,750,000 $4,508,479 John Gregory Horsley $2,500,000 $4,098,618 Kirk Andrew Gollnitz $2,500,000 $4,074,938 Jan Marie Hurnblad Sparks $5,000,000 $8,149,875 Erik Lee Sparks $2,500,000 $4,074,938 Gary Lee Sparks $5,000,000 $8,149,875 Jane Gieselman Sparks $2,500,000 $4,074,938 Zachary Douglas Sparks $2,500,000 $4,074,938 Colleen Whipple $5,000,000 $8,032,210 Mary Beth Smedinghoff $5,000,000 $8,014,090 Thomas John Smedinghoff $5,000,000 $8,014,090 Mark T. Smedinghoff $2,500,000 $4,007,045 Bruce K. Nichols $5,000,000 $7,938,825 Jeanne M. Nichols $2,500,000 $3,969,413
22 Pain and Suffering or Compensatory Damages Plus Plaintiff Solatium Damages Prejudgment Interest M.G.N. $2,500,000 $3,969,413 Lorria Welch $5,000,000 $7,938,825 Barry Welch $5,000,000 $7,938,825 Zackary Welch $2,500,000 $3,969,413 Kathryn Mary Pucino $5,000,000 $8,924,865 Albert W. Pucino Jr. $5,000,000 $8,924,865 Lisa M. Haglof $2,500,000 $4,462,433 Melissa A. Pucino $2,500,000 $4,462,433