The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SARAH SHOURD, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
V. ) Case No. 22-cv-1309
)
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC _ )
REPUBLIC OF IRAN, )
)
Defendant. )
JOSHUA FATTAL, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
V. ) Case No. 22-cv-2110
)
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC)
REPUBLIC OF IRAN, )
)
Defendant. )
SHANE BAUER, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 22-cv-2294
)
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC)
REPUBLIC OF IRAN, )
)
Defendant. )
4H,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
September 30, 2024 [Dkt. ##16, 17, 17]
Before the Court are three motions for default judgment from three, consolidated
cases brought against the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”): Shourd, No.
22-cv-1309; Fattal, No. 22-cv-2110; and Bauer, No. 22-cv-2294. I GRANT IN PART
and DENY IN PART (only insofar as damages awarded differ from plaintiffs’ requests)
each motion and award damages consistent with Appendix A to this memorandum opinion.
I, BACKGROUND
These three cases stem from the unjust imprisonment of Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer,
and Josh Fattal by Iranian forces at Evin prison, in Tehran, Iran. In Shourd, the plaintiffs
are victim Sarah Shourd and her mother, Patricia “Nora” Shourd. See Compl., Shourd, No.
22-cv-1309 (May 12, 2022) [Dkt. #1]. In Fattal, plaintiffs are victim Joshua “Josh” Fattal,
his parents, Jacob and Laura Fattal, and his brother, Alexander “Alex” Fattal. See Compl.,
Fattal, No. 22-cv-2110 (July 18, 2022) [Dkt. #1]. In Bauer, plaintiffs are victim Shane
Bauer, his parents, Al Bauer and Cindy Fisher, and his sisters, Nicole Lindstrom and
Shannon Bauer. See Compl., Bauer, No. 22-cv-2294 (Aug. 3, 2022) [Dkt. #1]. All eleven
plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are U.S. citizens.!
Plaintiffs served Iran under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4) via diplomatic channels. See
Return of Service, Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309 [Dkt. #11]; Return of Service, Fattal, No. 22-
cv-2110 [Dkt. #12]; Return of Service, Bauer, No. 22-cv-2294 [Dkt. #12]. But Iran has
' Pls.’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L. in Supp. of Their Mot. for Default J. (“Shourd
Br.”) Ex. 1, Decl. of S. Shourd, Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309 [Dkt. #15-2] 7 1; Shourd Br. Ex. 2, Decl. of N.
Shourd, id. [Dkt. #15-3] § 1; Pls.’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L. in Supp. of Their
Mot. for Default J. (“Fattal Br.”) Ex. 1, Decl. of Joshua “Josh” Fattal, Fattal, No. 22-cv-2110 [Dkt. #16-
2] 4 1; Fattal Br. Ex. 2, Decl. of L. Fattal, id. [Dkt. #16-3] 1; Fattal Br. Ex. 3, Decl. of Jacob Fattal, id.
[Dkt. #16-4] JJ 1-2; Fattal Br. Ex. 4, Decl. of A. Fattal, id. [Dkt. #16-5] § 1; Pls.’ Proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of L. in Supp. of Their Mot. for Default J. (“Bauer Br.”) Ex. 1, Decl. of Shane,
Bauer, No. 22-cv-2294 [Dkt. #16-3] J 1; Bauer Br. Ex. 2, Decl. of C. Fischer, id. [Dkt. #16-4]; Bauer Br.
Ex. 3, Decl. of A. Bauer, id. [Dkt. #16-5] 4 1; Bauer Br. Ex. 4, Decl. of N. Lindstrom, id. [Dkt. #16-6]
4 1; Bauer Br. Ex. 5, Decl. of Shannon Bauer, id. [Dkt. #16-7] 4 1.
2
not appeared in any of these three cases. Accordingly, the Clerk entered default as to Iran
in each case. See Clerk’s Entry of Default, Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309 [Dkt. #14]; Clerk’s
Entry of Default, Fattal, No. 22-cv-2110 [Dkt. #15]; Clerk’s Entry of Default, Bauer,
No. 22-cv-2294 [Dkt. #15]. Plaintiffs’ motions for default judgment followed.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“TWlhen the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially
unresponsive party,” a court can enter a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(b)(2). Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting HLF.
Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689, 691 (D.C. Cir.
1970)). Plaintiffs must establish FSIA claims “by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28
U.S.C. § 1608(e); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d) (detailing the same standard). The Court can
“accept as true the plaintiffs’ uncontroverted evidence.” Elahi v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
124 F. Supp. 2d 97, 100 (D.D.C. 2000). Additionally, the Court can “determine precisely
how much and what kinds of evidence the plaintiff must provide.” Han Kim v. Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Courts “ha[ve] an
unusual degree of discretion over evidentiary rulings in a FSIA case,” and evidence may
fall beneath the standard normally required. See, e.g., Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864
F.3d 751, 785 (D.C. Cir. 2017), vacated & remanded on other grounds sub nom. Opati v.
Republic of Sudan, 590 U.S. 418 (2020). This discretion covers admitting expert
testimony, something “of crucial importance” in cases such as these when it “is difficult or
impossible to obtain” from an absent sovereign “firsthand evidence and eyewitness
testimony.” Jd. at 785-87.
The Court can enter default judgment when “(1) [it] has subject matter jurisdiction
over the claims, (2) personal jurisdiction is properly exercised over the defendant[], (3) the
plaintiffs have presented satisfactory evidence to establish their claims against the
defendants, and (4) the plaintiffs have satisfactorily proven that they are entitled to the
monetary damages they seek.” Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 228 F. Supp. 3d 64, 75
(D.D.C. 2017).
WI. FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the records in these cases, including affidavits and expert reports
submitted with Plaintiffs’ motions, see Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F. Supp. 2d
204, 212 (D.D.C. 2012); Owens, 864 F.3d at 785-87, and previous cases concerning the
same actors, see Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F. Supp. 2d 105, 109 n.6 (D.D.C.
2005), the Court can make the following findings of fact.
A. Imprisonment of Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal in Iran
In July 2009, Sarah Shourd and Shane Bauer travelled with friends from their home
in Damascus, Syria, to Iraqi Kurdistan. Decl. of S. Shourd {{] 5—7. With Josh Fattal, they
visited Ahmad Awa, a waterfall that was a popular tourist destination, with a plan to hike
and camp overnight before meeting another friend. Decl. of S. Shourd 4 8; Decl. of Josh
Fattal §§ 11-13; Decl. of Shane Bauer §{] 7-9. After several hours of hiking the following
morning, they spotted a uniformed soldier with a gun who motioned for the three
Americans to approach. Decl. of S. Shourd J 11; Decl. of Josh Fattal ¥ 15; Decl. of Shane
? Further findings of fact specific to individual claims and damages are detailed infra.
4
Bauer 4 10. They complied and were led to more soldiers wearing uniforms bearing the
Iranian flag. Decl. of S. Shourd §§[ 11-12; Decl. of Josh Fattal {J 15-16; Decl. of Shane
Bauer 7 10-11. A soldier explained that they had been in Iraq when the soldier flagged
them down, but now they had crossed into Iran. Decl. of Josh Fattal 4 17. The soldiers let
Shane make a phone call, but threatened to shoot him ifhe tried to leave. Decl. of S. Shourd
{ 14; Decl. of Josh Fattal { 18; Decl. of Shane Bauer { 13. The three prisoners were forced
into a vehicle and were kept in various locations for a couple days until they arrived at Evin
prison in Tehran. Decl. of S. Shourd ff 16-21; Decl. of Josh Fattal {J 19-24; Decl. of
Shane Bauer {f 14-17. “This Court and others have also recognized that Evin Prison is
well-known for its inhumane conditions.” Alinejad v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2023 WL
4684929, at *18 (D.D.C. July 6, 2023).
Upon their arrival at Evin prison, all three were placed in solitary confinement and
squalid conditions: Shourd and Bauer were put in adjacent cells, Decl. of S. Shourd { 24,
Decl. of Shane Bauer § 17, but Josh was placed in a cell elsewhere, Decl. of Josh Fattal
q 24. Each prisoner’s cell was 6-8 feet by 10-12 feet with only a bathroom and overhead
light that remained on for 24 hours per day. Decl. of S. Shourd 422; Decl. of Josh Fattal
{ 25; Decl. of Shane Bauer { 18. Interrogations began when they arrived at the prison, but
grew more sophisticated, with interrogators repeatedly trying to get the prisoners to admit
to being U.S. spies. Decl. of S. Shourd 25-26, 29-30; Decl. of Josh Fattal {{ 22, 28—
30; Decl. of Shane Bauer 925. They could hear other prisoners being tortured and
screaming. Decl. of S. Shourd § 24; Decl. of Josh Fattal {J 32, 53; Decl. of Shane Bauer
420. After one month, the three prisoners were moved to a different part of the prison,
5
separated, and put in the same kind of cells (even smaller in Bauer’s case). Decl. of S.
Shourd § 28; Decl. of Josh Fattal J] 39-41; Decl. of Shane Bauer ff] 24-25. Eventually,
they were allowed to spend 30 minutes together outside of their cells each day. Decl. of S.
Shourd 4 37.4
Extensive solitary confinement, interrogation, and uncertainty caused severe
psychological distress to all three prisoners. The details of their long stays at Evin prison
are numerous, but the following, brief summaries illuminate the horror of their experiences.
Shourd feared she would be raped or stuck in Evin prison forever. Decl. of S.
Shourd § 23. On one occasion, she was pushed up stairs and pushed into her cell. Decl. of
S. Shourd § 21. After one episode beating the walls in her cell and not realizing she was
screaming at herself, she worried that she was permanently breaking. Decl. of S. Shourd
{§ 35-36. In September 2010, to leave, Shourd signed a sham indictment charging her
with illegal entry and espionage. Decl. of S. Shourd {{ 47-48. After all, as one interrogator
had told her, she “was a political prisoner.” Decl. of S. Shourd § 34. In total, Shourd spent
410 days in solitary confinement before being released. Shourd Br. 31.
Bauer was told to confess to being a spy or that he would remain in Evin for a very
long time. Decl. of Shane Bauer 22. Yet, one interrogator told Bauer that he knew he
was not a spy, but that it was up to the United States to negotiate his release. Decl. of
Shane Bauer § 26. After three months of solitary confinement, Bauer “began to feel that
[he] was losing [his] mind” and became hopeless. Decl. of Shane Bauer { 27. Fattal too
had “felt reality slipping away from [him].” Decl. of Josh Fattal ¢ 45. Then guards moved
Bauer to share Fattal’s cell. Decl. of Shane Bauer § 28; Decl. of Josh Fattal | 46. However,
6
in such a small space for 23.5 hours a day, the shared cell posed its own difficulties for the
men. Decl. of Josh Fattal ff 49, 57-58; Decl. of Shane Bauer {| 29-30. The guards made
life more difficult; they “prodded, poked, insulted, and goaded [Fattal] on a daily basis”
and “started scuffles and physical fights with [him] and Shane.” Decl. of Josh Fattal { 54.
Bauer and Fattal’s struggle continued for about two more years, cramped in that small cell
with the light that remained on 24 hours a day, and “hearing the regular physical torture in
nearby cells.” Decl. of Josh Fattal 453; Decl. of Shane Bauer {ff 29, 34-35. To make
matters worse for Bauer, his health was deteriorating from a bleeding ulcer and anemia.
Decl. of Shane Bauer § 36. In February 2011, Bauer and Fattal finally appeared before a
judge and were charged: with illegal entry and espionage. Decl. of Josh Fattal {| 60; Decl.
of Shane Bauer 937. In August 2011, following a sham trial, Bauer and Fattal were
convicted and each sentenced to eight years in prison. Decl. of Shane Bauer {| 38; Decl. of
Josh Fattal § 67. Then, in September 2011, after 782 days in Iranian custody, Shane and
Bauer were released. Decl. of Josh Fattal § 68; Decl. of Shane Bauer { 39.
Unfortunately, this story is familiar, as expert reports submitted in these cases by
Dr. Mehdi Khalaji detail. Shourd Br. Ex. 4, Mehdi Khalaji Expert Rpt., Shourd, No. 22-
cv-1309 [Dkt. #16-5]; Fattal Br. Ex. 6, Mehdi Khalaji Expert Rpt., Fattal, No. 22-cv-2110
[Dkt. #17-7]; Bauer Br. Ex. 7, Mehdi Khalaji Expert Rpt., Bauer, No. 22-cv-2294 [Dkt.
#17-9]. As Dr. Khalaji explains in her reports,’ Iran has been engaging in hostage taking
3 Dr. Khalaji is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy and a specialist on the
behavior and politics of Iran and the Shiite community in the Middle East. Mehdi Khalaji Expert Rpt. 1—
2, Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309. (For simplicity’s sake, this citation and those following are to only one of Dr.
Khalaji’s reports because her findings and conclusions are the same as to each plaintiff.) She has studied
and trained in Iran, published many articles and reports on these subjects, and been consulted by the
7
since 1979 and “the Iranian regime has viewed hostage-taking as a matchless way of
advancing its anti-American, anti-Western, pan-Islamist policy.” Mehdi Khalaji Expert
Rpt. 6, Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309. Yet, “The arrest, detention, isolation, abuse, mistreatment,
and legal process described in Ms. Shourd’s, Mr. Bauer’s, and Mr. Fattal’s complaints are
contrary to Iranian law.” Jd. at 9. The Court accepts Dr. Khalaji’s opinions and conclusions
that “Iran’s purpose and specific intent in this particular case was to arrest and detain Ms.
Shourd, Mr. Bauer, and Mr. Fattal for the purpose of gaining greater leverage and exacting
certain concessions from the United States in the context of ongoing negotiations.” Jd. at
13; see Owens, 864 F.3d at 785-87. The Court further accepts Dr. Khalaji’s conclusion
that “[g]iven the frequency and similar characteristics, the use of justice mechanisms
controlled by the State to carry them out, and the control the regime exerts over such
matters, there is no reasonable possibility that these acts occurred without the direction,
participation, and approval of the Iranian government.” Mehdi Khalaji Expert Rpt. 13-14,
Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309; see Owens, 864 F.3d at 785-87.
B. Post-Imprisonment
Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal have suffered lasting and ongoing psychological harm
from their unjust and harrowing experiences at Evin prison. These three plaintiffs have
submitted expert reports by Dr. Stuart Grassian, M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist, that
attest to their lasting psychological suffering.* Dr. Grassian is certainly qualified to serve
White House, National Security Council, and the U.S. Departments of State and Defense on Iran-U.S.
relations and Jran’s nuclear policy. Jd.
* Shourd Br. Ex. 3, Dr. Stuart Grassian Expert Rpt.: Psychiatric Rpt. re Sarah Shourd, Shourd, No. 22-cv-
1309 [Dkt. #15-4]; Fattal Br. Ex. 5, Dr. Stuart Grassian Expert Rpt.: Psychiatric Rpt. re Joshua Fattal,
8
as an expert in this capacity: he has evaluated and treated patients in psychiatry for 50
years, served on the faculty for Harvard Medical School, and his work on the psychiatric
effects of solitary confinement has been cited by numerous federal courts, including the
United States Supreme Court.° Accordingly, the Court adopts his testimony and
professional opinions from his expert reports. See Owens, 864 F.3d at 785-87.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Default Judgment
Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment because this Court (1) “has subject matter
jurisdiction over the claims, (2) personal jurisdiction is properly exercised over the
defendant[], (3) the plaintiffs have presented satisfactory evidence to establish their claims
against the defendants, and (4) the plaintiffs have satisfactorily proven that they are entitled
to the monetary damages they seek.” Braun, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 75.
1. Subject matter jurisdiction
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA’s terrorism exception, 28
U.S.C. § 1605A(a). “The terrorism exception applies when money damages are sought (1)
from a ‘foreign country [that] was designated a state sponsor of terrorism at the time of the
act,’ (2) by ‘a national of the United States,’ (3) after ‘the claimant has afforded the foreign
state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim,’ (4) to compensate the claimant ‘for
personal injury or death caused by torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage
Fattal, No. 22-cv-2110 [Dkt. #18-5]. Bauer Br. Ex. 6, Dr. Stuart Grassian Expert Rpt.: Psychiatric Rpt. re
Shane Bauer, Bauer, No. 22-cv-2294 [Dkt. #18-6].
> See supra note 4.
taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act, if engaged in by
an official, employee, or agent of a foreign country.’” Rezaian v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
422 F. Supp. 3d 164, 175 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Braun, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 75). These
first three conditions are easily satisfied here,® so only the fourth requires discussion.
Plaintiffs claim that Iran caused personal injury to Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal by means of
torture and hostage-taking.
“Regardless whether Iran’s treatment of [Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal] was sufficiently
severe to constitute ‘torture’ under the FSJA, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that
Iran committed an act of hostage taking.” Saberi v. Gov’t of Islamic Republic of Iran, 541
F. Supp. 3d 67, 80 (D.D.C. 2021). Under the FSIA, a “hostage taking” is when
[a]ny person. . . seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue
to detain another person . . . in order to compel a third party, namely, a State,
an international governmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or
a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or
implicit condition for the release of the hostage... .
International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, art. 1, Dec. 17, 1979, 1316
U.N.T.S. 205, 207 (incorporated by FSIA at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(3)). Here, one interrogator
told Shourd she “was a political prisoner.” Decl. of S. Shourd 9 34. Another interrogator
told Bauer that he knew he was not a spy, but that it was up to the United States to negotiate
his release. Decl. of Shane Bauer { 26. As noted, the Court accepts Dr. Khalaji’s opinions
and conclusions that “Iran’s purpose and specific intent in this particular case was to arrest
° First, Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terror since 1984. See State Sponsors of Terrorism,
U.S. Dep’t of State, https://Awww.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/. Second, Plaintiffs are all U.S.
Citizens. See supra note 1. Third, Plaintiffs provided Iran with the required opportunity for arbitration
when they served them. See Dkt. ##6, 11, Shourd; Dkt. ##8-1, 12, Bauer; Dkt. ##8, 12, Fattal; Simpson
v. Socialist People’s Libyan Jamahiriya, 326 F.3d 230, 233 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
10
and detain Ms. Shourd, Mr. Bauer, and Mr. Fattal for the purpose of gaining greater
leverage and exacting certain concessions from the United States in the context of ongoing
negotiations.” Mehdi Khalaji Expert Rpt. 13, Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309; see Owens, 864
F.3d at 785-87.
Finally, the extreme mental and emotional injuries that Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal
suffered were clearly “caused by” Iran. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1). Plaintiffs are only
required to establish proximate cause. See Owens, 864 F.3d at 794. That standard “requires
some reasonable connection between the act or omission of the defendant and the damage
which the plaintiff has suffered.” Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 651 F. Supp. 3d 65, 91
(D.D.C. 2023) (quoting id.). There is no question that there is a reasonable connection
between Iran’s hostage taking of Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal and the harm they suffered. See
Medhi Khalaji Expert Rpt. 13-14, Shourd, No. 22-cv-1209; Owens, 864 F.3d at 785-87.
Causation is clearly satisfied.
Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under
the terrorism exception to the FSIA.
2. Personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs properly served Iran pursuant to § 1608(a)(4). See supra Part I.
Therefore, Plaintiffs have properly exercised personal jurisdiction over defendant Iran.
3. Establishment of claims
Because Plaintiffs have established subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA’s
terrorism exception and are all U.S. citizens, they may use the FSIA’s cause of action and
“ha[ve] also established entitlement to relief as a matter of federal law.” Fritz v. Islamic
11
Republic of Iran, 320 F. Supp. 3d 48, 86-87 (D.D.C. 2018); 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)(1).
4. Entitlement to damages
Under § 1605A(c)’s federal cause of action, money damages include “economic
damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c).
Yet, “Section 1605A(c) ... provides no guidance on the substantive bases for liability to
determine plaintiffs’ entitlement to damages. Consequently, courts have applied ‘general
principles of tort law,’ such as the Restatement (Second) of Torts, to determine liability.”
Braun, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 78 (quoting Est. of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659
F. Supp. 2d 20, 24 (D.D.C. 2009)) (collecting cases). Plaintiffs offer three tort-based
theories as bases for liability: false imprisonment, assault and battery; and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs merit damages because Iran is indeed liable
under these torts and their requested damages are “reasonable estimate[s].” Roth v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 78 F. Supp. 3d 379, 402 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Salazar, 370 F. Supp. 2d
at 115-16). To determine reasonable estimates, this Court “look[s] to expert testimony and
prior awards for comparable injury.” Braun, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 82.
First, Plaintiffs are correct that Iran is liable for false imprisonment. “False
666
imprisonment occurs when a defendant ““‘acts intending to confine [a person] within
boundaries fixed by the actor,’ [and] the action ‘directly or indirectly results in such a
confinement of the other,’ and the plaintiff ‘is conscious of the confinement or is harmed
by it.’” Rezaian, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 179 (quoting Jenco v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 154
F. Supp. 2d 27, 34 (D.D.C. 2001), aff'd sub nom. Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315
F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). “Holding an innocent person hostage satisfies all of these
12
elements.” Jd.
Second, Plaintiffs are correct that Iran assaulted Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal because
(1) it acted ‘intending to cause a harmful contact with .. ., or an imminent apprehension
of such a contact’ by, [Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal] and (2) [they] were ‘thereby put in such
imminent apprehension.’” See Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 76
(D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21(1)). Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal
regularly heard fellow prisoners be tortured and were provided no assurances of their
safety. It is clear that forcing the three into prison at gunpoint, interrogating them, and
keeping them guessing as to when or if it would be their turn for torture constitutes assault.
See id. The fact that- guards had been physical with each prisoner only heightened the
reasonableness of the prisoners’ apprehension. See Decl. of S. Shourd § 21; Decl. of Josh
Fattal § 54. It also means that Iran is liable for battery against Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal
because (1) “it acted ‘intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with ..., or an
imminent apprehension of such a contact’ by, [Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal] and (2) ‘a
harmful contact with’ [them] ‘directly or indirectly result[ed].’” Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d
at 77 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13).
Third, Plaintiffs are correct that Iran is liable for intentional infliction of severe
emotional distress (“TIED”) as to all Plaintiffs. Iran is liable for IED because “by extreme
and outrageous conduct[, it] intentionally or recklessly cause[d] severe emotional distress
to” Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal. Jd. at 77 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1)).
Hostage taking, as an act of terrorism, satisfies an ITED claim’s high standard because “acts
of terrorism are by their very definition extreme and outrageous and intended to cause the
13
highest degree of emotional distress.” Jd. (quoting Belkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 667
F. Supp. 2d 8, 22 (D.D.C. 2009)).
B. Damages
Plaintiffs merit the following damages under the applicable standards discussed
infra.
1. Economic damages
Plaintiffs with claims under the FSIA’s private right of action may receive damages
awards for economic loss stemming from the injury or death of an immediate family
member if they “can establish those damages through ‘competent evidence.’” Force v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, 617 F. Supp. 3d 20, 31 (D.D.C. 2022) (quoting Moradi v. Islamic -
Republic of Iran, 77 F. Supp. 3d 57, 71 (D.D.C. 2015)). Reports by forensic economists
based on “reasonable and well-founded assumptions” can provide a proper basis for
determining such awards. Reed, 845 F. Supp. 2d at 214. The standard for establishing
entitlement to economic damages (future harm) is proving entitlement to a reasonable
certainty, “(i.e., more likely than not).” Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680, 685 (D.C.
Cir. 2003). Sarah Shourd, Josh Fattal, and Shane Bauer have each pleaded entitlement to
economic damages. See Compl. (Prayer for Relief, Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309; Compl.
(Prayer for Relief), Fattal, No. 22-cv-2110; Compl. (Prayer for Relief), Bauer, No. 22-cv-
2294. However, they have not attempted to support a claim for economic damages at this
stage because they have not submitted any proof to establish economic damages. In fact,
they are essentially silent on the topic in their briefing. The Court cannot create economic
14
loss awards out of thin air, and thus cannot award economic damages here.
2. Compensatory damages for pain and suffering
Sarah Shourd, Josh Fattal, and Shane Bauer, for surviving hundreds of days of
imprisonment after being taken hostage, seek damages for pain and suffering for the time
they were held hostage and post-release. See Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 83. Pain and
suffering are “reasonably certain to follow from hostage taking.” Rezaian, 422 F. Supp. 3d
at 180. “Courts ‘in this district ... typically set damages for prolonged and abusive
captivity at $10,000 per day for the pain and suffering that victims experienced while
imprisoned.’” Jd. (quoting Hekmati v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 278 F. Supp. 3d 145, 163—
64 (D.D.C. 2017). Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal each ask for awards for pain and suffering in
captivity following this metric. Shourd Br. 29 (requesting $4,100,000 for 410 days of
imprisonment; Bauer Br. 34 (requesting $7,820,000 for 782 days of imprisonment); Fattal
Br. 34 (requesting $7,820,000 for 782 days of imprisonment). Such awards are
appropriate.
Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal also each request $12,000,000 for post-release pain and
suffering. Shourd Br. 32; Bauer Br. 34; Fattal Br. 37. No specific formula determines
post-release damages. Gidada v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2024 WL 3741438, at *2
(D.D.C. July 1, 2024). Instead, when calculating post-release damages, “courts routinely
consider (1) the ‘length and severity’ of the plaintiff's torture and detention; (2) the ‘extent
of the plaintiff's lasting physical and mental injuries;’ and (3) the plaintiff's ‘age at the
time of release’ as well as ‘the estimated number of years that the plaintiff can be expected
to suffer from these injuries.’”” Saberi, 541 F. Supp. 3d at 83 (quoting Azadeh v. Gov’t of
15
Islamic Republic of Iran, 2018 WL 4232913, at *19 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2018)). Additionally,
courts look to awards in similar cases for guidance. Jd.
Here, it is useful to consider three FSIA cases where hostages were also held at, and
released from, Evin prison. In Hekmati v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the court awarded $10
million in post-release damages to a plaintiff who was held hostage for 1,602 days
(sometimes in solitary confinement), tortured, and 32 years old when released. 278
F. Supp. 3d at 150-55, 164. In Saberi v. Government of Islamic Republic of Iran, the court,
without making any finding regarding torture, awarded $9 million to a plaintiff who was
held hostage at Evin prison for 100 days (partially in solitary confinement) and 32 years
old when released. 541 F. Supp. 3d at 79-84. In Rezaian, the court awarded plaintiff $10
million after he was held hostage for 544 days (partially in solitary confinement), tortured,
and almost 40 years old when released. 422 F. Supp. 3d at 180.
Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal’s confinements are closest to the plaintiff in Rezaian, but
their treatments are closest to the plaintiff in Saberi. Shourd’s age upon release (32 years
old) was the same as the plaintiff in Saberi, while Bauer and Fattal were both 29 years old
upon release. Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal have all struggled with post-traumatic stress
syndrome since being released.’ Considering the relevant factors alongside awards in other
cases as guidance, I award $9,000,000 to each Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal in post-release
damages for pain and suffering.
7 See supra note 4.
16
3. Solatium
Plaintiffs who are family members of victims may recover damages known as
solatium claims for the emotional injuries they suffer from harm to their relations. Valore,
700 F. Supp. 2d at 83. Solatium awards are thus available to: Nora Shourd as victim Sarah
Shourd’s mother; Cindy Fischer and Al Bauer as victim Shane Bauer’s parents, and Nicole
Lindstrom and Shannon Bauer as his sisters; and Laura Fattal and Jacob Fattal, as victim
Josh Fattal’s parents, and Alex Fattal as his brother. The severity of a family member’s
pain and nature of his or her relationship with the victim determines solatium damages.
See Est. of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229, 269 (D.D.C. 2006). In
our Circuit, courts consider a standardization known as the Heiser damages framework to
determine solatium awards. See id.
The Heiser framework provides guidelines for damages of “approximately $5
million to a parent whose child was killed and approximately $2.5 million to a plaintiff
whose sibling was killed.” Jd. (footnote omitted). When a plaintiff's victim-relation
suffers non-fatal injuries, such as here, courts generally award half of what family members
would receive if the victim had died. See Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 864 F. Supp. 2d
24, 39 (D.D.C. 2012). Courts “deviate upwards where the ‘circumstances surrounding the
terrorist attack [make] the suffering particularly more acute or agonizing.’” Fields v.
Syrian Arab Republic, 2021 WL 9244135, at *15 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2021) (quoting Oveissi
v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F. Supp. 2d 16, 26-27 (D.D.C. 2011)).
All family members here are immediate family members, parents or siblings, who
have submitted affidavits attesting to their close relationships and pain from Iran’s hostage
17
taking of their loved ones.’ Each parent in these cases requests $2.5 million awards
(standard for parents of surviving victim-children) for his or her pain and suffering during
the prisoners’ period of captivity and from witnessing its effects on their lives. All siblings
here request $1.25 million awards each for their pain and suffering from the same causes
(standard for siblings of surviving victims). All siblings also request a 25% upward
deviation.
These standard awards are clearly merited. See Rezaian, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 180.
Further, Plaintiffs show these hostage takings had similarly profound impacts on the lives
of both the parents and siblings in this case. Therefore, I award all family members upward
variations: of 25% from the standard solatium awards because the circumstances
surrounding hostage taking do render “the suffering particularly more acute or agonizing”
than those of a singular attack. See Oveissi, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 26-27. The knowledge that
loved ones are alive and could at the same time potentially be killed or released breeds a
torturous combination of fear and hope. Further, it spurs the feeling that one can and must
do something to change the situation and improve a loved one’s odds of release. That is
exactly what these affidavits detail: parents and siblings alike saw their lives come to a halt
and their entire focus and job became raising awareness and campaigning to get their loved
ones released.
4. Punitive damages
Courts may award punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) to “punish
8 See supra note 1 (compiling affidavits of all Plaintiffs),
18
outrageous behavior and deter such outrageous conduct in the future.” Oveissi, 879
F. Supp. 2d at 55-56. Defendant’s conduct here was clearly outrageous. As other courts
have noted, consistently targeting, falsely imprisoning, and severely mistreating American
citizens by holding them hostage, constitutes outrageous conduct that makes punitive
damages appropriate. See Rezaian, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 183; Hekmati, 278 F. Supp. 3d at
166. To calculate appropriate punitive damages, “courts consider (1) the character of the
defendants’ act, (2) the nature and extent of harm to the plaintiffs that the defendants caused
or intended to cause, (3) the need for deterrence, and (4) the wealth of the defendants.”
Rezaian, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 183 (quoting Braun, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 86).
Courts have used various methods to calculate punitive damages in our Circuit,
including: (1) multiplying a foreign state’s annual expenditures in support of terrorism; (2)
applying a ratio of punitive to compensatory damages that previous cases assessing similar
conduct have used; and (3) “award[ing] a fixed amount of $150,000,000 per victim.”
Thuneibat, 167 F. Supp. 3d at 53-54. Fixed amount awards of this size are sometimes
more appropriate for deadlier terrorism attacks, see Frost v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 419
F. Supp. 3d 112, 117 (D.D.C. 2020), but not unprecedented in hostage taking situations,
see Rezaian, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 183-84 (awarding $150,000,000 in punitive damages for
each affected family). The relevant factors support sizable, fixed awards here: (1) the
character of the act is horribly unjust and shows complete disregard for international law
and human life; (2) the nature and extent of the harm is permanent psychological damage;
(3) the need for deterrence is immense since this practice has been ongoing and is
continuing; and (4) Iran has great wealth. Accordingly, I award punitive damages of
19
$150,000,000 per family (totaling $450,000,000), apportioned among each group of
plaintiffs in proportion to their award of compensatory damages. See Fields, 2021 WL
9244135, at *17.
os Prejudgment interest
Plaintiffs request prejudgment interest on their awards. Compl. (Prayer for Relief),
Shourd, No. 22-cv-1309; Compl. (Prayer for Relief), Fattal, No. 22-cv-2110; Compl.
(Prayer for Relief), Bauer, No. 22-cv-2294. Prejudgment interest only applies to the
economic loss awards, and not pain and suffering, solatium, or punitive damages. See
Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic, 908 F. Supp. 2d 216, 232 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd, 554
F. App’x 16 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Fields, 2021 WL 9244135, at *17. Because there are no
economic loss awards in these cases, Plaintiffs’ request for pre-judgment interest is moot
and thus denied.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons above, I GRANT these motions for default judgment and award
damages consistent with this memorandum opinion and as specified in Appendix A.
‘herd Mun
RICHARD J. LEON
United States District Judge
20
APPENDIX A
Damages
Case No. . tye
Plaintiff Relationship Hain Solatium Eunltixe TOTAL
Suffering Damages
Sarah =
Shourd Victim $13,100,000 $121,109,399.08 $134,209,399.08
22-cv-1309 Patricia
“Nora” Victim’s Mother $3,125,000 $28,846,153.85 $31,971,154.85
Shourd
Shane Bauer Victim $16,820,000 $96,3 16,090.86 $113,136,091.86
Cindy Fisher | Victim’s Mother $3,125,000 $17,894,636.38 $21,019,636.38
22-cv-2294 Al Bauer Victim’s Father $3,125,000 $17,894,636.38 $21,019,636.38
Nicole _._a_
Lindstrom Victim’s Sister $1,562,500 $8,947,318.19 $10,509,818.19
Shannon | Victim's Sister $1,562,500 | $8,947,318.19 | $10,509,818.19
Bauer
oe Victim $16,820,000 $102,425,657.16 | $119,245,657.16
Laura Fattal | Victim’s Mother $3,125,000 $19,029,737.14 $22,154,737.14
22-cv-2294
Jacob Fattal Victim’s Father $3,125,000 $19,029,737.14 $22,154,737.14
Alex Fattal Victim’s Brother $1,562,500 $9,514,868.57 $11,077,369.57
21