Stearns v. Islamic Republic of Iran

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHIRLEY STEARNS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

y Case No. 17-cv-131 (RCL)

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the Special Master’s ninth report and recommendations regarding

damages in this case. ECF No. 146. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts each of the

damages recommendations provided by the Special Master.

I. . BACKGROUND

This civil action arises from a series of attacks involving explosively formed penetrators

(“EFPs”), a type of improvised explosive device (“IED”), that insurgents in Iraq used to injure or

kill American servicemembers and a military contractor between 2004 and 2011.

Filed on January 19, 2017, the Complaint was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A by the

surviving victims, the estates of the deceased victims, and their close family members seeking

compensatory and punitive damages. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on

March 22, 2018. ECF No. 14. Plaintiffs served defendant Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”)

through diplomatic channels on August 12, 2018. ECF No. 21. Following Iran’s failure to

respond, and upon affidavit by plaintiffs’ counsel, the Clerk of Court entered default on October

15, 2018. ECF No. 23.

On December 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a memorandum of proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law (“PFFCL”) in support of their motion for default judgment as to Iran’s liability

for plaintiffs’ injuries stemming from 58 of the attacks alleged in their Amended Complaint.

PFFCL in Supp. of Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 35 at 2. Specifically, they asked this Court to:

(1) “Court find Iran liable for the attacks at issue in this PFFCL”; (2) “based upon the evidence

99 66

they presented in [Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 16-cv-232 (CKK) (D.D.C.)]” “as well

as additional evidence that” plaintiffs submitted here. Id.

On October 3, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 47, holding that

Iran materially supported the attacks, that Iran proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries through its

material support, and that Iran did so with an intent to cause severe emotional distress. See also

Stearns v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 633 F. Supp. 3d 284 (D.D.C. 2022). Accordingly, the Court

issued a Finding of Liability as to injuries sustained by 229 plaintiffs. ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs

moved to appoint a special master. ECF No. 50. This Court granted plaintiffs’ motion on February

21, 2023, appointing Stephen A. Salzburg to serve as Special Master. ECF No. 52. The Court

instructed that the “Special Master shall be guided in reviewing and evaluating damages claims by

FSIA opinions, including Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229, 269,

318 (D.D.C. 2006); Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 85 (D.D.C. 2010), and

their progeny.” Jd. Plaintiffs then moved for orders to seal the Special Master’s reports and to

allow the Special Master to submit periodic reports. ECF Nos. 54 & 55. The Court granted

plaintiffs’ motions. ECF No. 57 & 58.

On January 15, 2025, the Special Master filed his ninth report and recommendations with

the Court regarding solatium, pain and suffering, and economic damages alleged by twenty-five

plaintiffs (“9th Special Master Rep.”). ECF No 146. These plaintiffs were injured in seven attacks

spanning June 5, 2006, to March 23, 2008.' Plaintiffs submitted their proposed redactions to the

Special Master’s report. ECF No. 147. The parties have not filed any objections to the reports

and recommendations within the statutorily allotted time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(£)(2) (allowing a

party to “file objections to—or a motion to adopt or modify—the master’s order, report, or

recommendations no later than 21 days after a copy is served”).

Having established liability, this Court examines the Special Master’s recommended

damages awards for the plaintiffs identified in his ninth report.

Il. DISCUSSION

Damages available under the FSIA “include economic damages, solatium, pain and

suffering, and punitive damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). To demonstrate entitlement to damages,

“a default winner must prove damages ‘in the same manner and to the same extent’ as any other

default winner.” Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680, 683-84 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Alameda

v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 622 F.2d 1044, 1048 (Ist Cir. 1980)). See also H.R. REP.

No. 94-1487, at 26 (1976) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) establishes “the same requirement

applicable to default judgments against the U.S. Government under rule 55(e), F[ed]. R. Civ. P.”).

For future damages, a plaintiff must demonstrate entitlement to a “reasonable certainty or a

preponderance of the evidence,” and prove damages by a “reasonable estimate.” Hill, 328 F.3d

at 684. For past losses, a plaintiff must “prove the fact of injury with reasonable certainty” yet

only “reasonably prove” the amount of damages. Jd. at 684 (quoting Samaritan Inns, Inc. v.

! Specifically, the seven attacks occurred on June 5, 2006 (two attacks); June 8, 2006; May 14, 2007; June 17, 2007;

July 9, 2007; March 23, 2008.

353 as

District of Columbia, 114 F.3d 1227, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). There are three sets of plaintiffs

whose damages were calculated in the 9th Special Master Report: six direct victims of terrorist

attacks who survived the attacks; family members of these survivors as well as family members of

other individuals who did not survive; and the estate of one victim who did not survive. Each set

of plaintiffs requires application of a different framework for their damages. The Court will

address the damages of each set of plaintiffs in turn.

A. The WIA Plaintiffs

The first set of plaintiffs is composed of six surviving victims of EFP attacks (“WIA

Plaintiffs”). The WIA Plaintiffs requested that the Special Master apply the framework adopted

by the Court in Lee v. Islamic Republic of Iran, which takes into account the range of injuries

that medical experts have identified as stemming specifically from EFP attacks. No. 19-cv-830-

APM, 2023 WL 7458370 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2023). Based on the Special Master’s findings in this -

case, the Court will adopt the Lee framework for the WIA plaintiffs. That framework establishes

the following categories for individuals based on their various injuries:

Category Characteristic Injuries Proposed Damages

Category 1 Psychological injuries Baseline: $2 million

(without traumatic brain Range: $1.5 - $8 million

injury (“TBI”)

diagnosis/severe shrapnel/

fractures/orthopedic

injuries/polytrauma)

Category 2 Mild TBI with psychological | Baseline: $5 million

injuries (without severe Range: $3 - $7 million

shrapnel/fractures/ orthopedic

injuries/polytrauma/traumatic

amputations)

Category 3 Mild TBI with psychological | Baseline: $7 million

injuries (with severe Range: $4 - $10 million

shrapnel/fractures/orthopedic

injuries)

Category 4

Mild TBI with psychological

injuries (with

polytrauma/traumatic

amputations)

Baseline: $15 million

Range: $10 - $20 million

Category 5

Moderate/severe TBI

(without severe

shrapnel/fractures/orthopedic

injuries/

polytrauma/traumatic

amputations)

Baseline: $20 million

Range: $15 - $25 million

Category 6

Moderate/severe TBI (with

severe

shrapnel/fractures/orthopedic

injuries/polytrauma/traumatic

amputations)

Baseline: $30 million

Range: $25 - $50 million

Based on the extensive documentary and other evidence submitted to him, the Special

Master made findings and proceeded to sort each of the six WIA Plaintiffs into one of the Lee

categories before recommending a commensurate award of damages:

Name

Category of Injury

Damages

Non-Economic

Summary of Injuries

Matthew Adamson

Category 2

$3.5 million

° TBI diagnosis

¢ Adjustment

Disorder diagnosis

* Service-connected

rated for PTSD

James Shepard

Category 1

$1.5 million

« PTSD and

Depression diagnoses

John Sklaney, III

Category 2

$3.5 million

¢ PTSD diagnosis

¢ Adjustment disorder

¢ Positive depression

screen

¢ Chronic insomnia

* Screened positive for

TBI (Diagnosis

for cognitive/linguistic

deficits due to TBI)

¢ Hearing loss and

tinnitus

Joshua Starkey

Category 1

$2 million

¢ Shrapnel injuries,

including shrapnel to

shoulder and glass

shards removed from

back of head

¢ Chronic PTSD

diagnosis

Joshua Brooks

Category 3

$10 million

¢ Severe shrapnel

injury to left lower leg

3rd degree burns

¢ Massive soft tissue

injuries and scarring

* Chronic pain

* Screened positive for

TBI

* Insomnia

* OSA (Obstructive

Sleep Apnea)

¢ Diagnosis of PTSD

and MDD (Major

Depressive Disorder)

Matthew Benson

Category 4

$15 million

¢ Severe head wound

on left side resulting

in fracture to back of

the head, serious brain

injury with swelling

and a brain bleed

¢ Neck puncture

wound

¢ Moderate TBI

¢ Chronic pain (head,

neck, shoulder, and

back)

* Daily headaches,

migraines

* Balance and

vestibular disorder

resulting in multiple

fainting episodes

* Insomnia.

* Cognitive

impairment and

memory issues

* Encephalomalacia

(softening of the

brain)

« Acute

encephalopathy

¢ Adjustment Disorder

diagnosis

¢ PTSD diagnosis

The Court ADOPTS, without discussion, the Special Master’s recommendations,

pursuant to the Lee framework, with regard to all six of the WIA Plaintiffs.

B. The Family Member Plaintiffs—Solatium Damages

Solatium damages are designed “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.” Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 78 F.

Supp. 3d 379, 402-03 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F. Supp.

2d 16, 25 (D.D.C. 2011)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

In Heiser, this Court surveyed damages awarded to the family members of the deceased

terrorism victims and determined that, based on averages, that “[s]pouses typically receive greater

damage awards than parents [or children], who, in turn, typically receive greater awards than

siblings.” 466 F. Supp. 2d at 269. This Court then established a framework whereby spouses of

deceased victims receive approximately $8 million, parents receive $5 million, and siblings receive

S745

$2.5 million. Id. See also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85 (observing that courts have “adopted the

framework set forth in Heiser as ‘an appropriate measure of damages for the family members of

victims’”) (quoting Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 51(D.D.C. 2007)).

Step-family members may similarly receive solatium damages awards consistent with the Heiser

framework when they “were members of the victim’s household” such that they were “viewed as

the functional equivalents of family members.” See Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d

325, 337 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

When applying this framework, this Court is mindful that “[t]hese numbers . . . are not set

in stone,” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010), and that

upward deviations may be warranted in the face of “evidence establishing an especially close

relationship between the plaintiff and decedent, particularly in comparison to the normal

interactions to be expected given the familial relationship” or with “medical proof of severe pain,

grief or suffering on behalf of the claimant” or if the “circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack

[rendered] the suffering particularly more acute or agonizing.” Oveissi, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 26-27.

“Decisions to deviate from the starting points provided by the Heiser framework are committed to

the discretion of the particular court in each case[.]” Id. at 26. Any departures from the Heiser

framework are generally small relative to the award specified by the developed framework, absent

“circumstances that appreciably worsen” a claimant’s “pain and suffering, such as cases involving

torture or kidnapping.” Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F. Supp. 2d 90, 108 (D.D.C.

2006). Conversely, downward departures may be appropriate where the evidence suggests that

the relationship between the victim and his family members is attenuated, Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d

at 86, or where a claimant fails to “prove damages in the same manner and to the same extent as

any other default winner.” Hill, 328 F.3d at 683 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Special Master made several upward departures from the Heiser framework for the

surviving family members of deceased terrorism victims. The first of these plaintiffs is Rene Pool,

the mother of a U.S. servicemember killed by an EFP attack. 9th Special Master Rep. 195. Her

son, Specialist (“SPC”) Mikeal Miller, was struck by an EFP in the July 9, 2007, attack. Id. at

193. Ms. Pool sat by his bedside for many days in the ensuing months, encouraging him and

providing comfort in the face of her son’s deteriorating condition. After doctors took SPC Miller

off a feeding tube and continued other interventions, Ms. Pool sat by his side for the final twelve

days of his life. Based on these and other details, the Special Master determined that Ms. Pool

was entitled to the 20% upward departure provided for under the framework adopted by the court

in Fritz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 15-cv-456-RDM, 2018 WL 5046229 (D.D.C. Aug. 13,

2008). The Court agrees that the upward departure is warranted and ADOPTS the

recommendation as to Ms. Pool.

The next plaintiff to receive an upward departure is Mrs. Tabitha McCoy, the widow of

U.S. Army Sergeant (“SGT”) Steve McCoy. SGT McCoy was seriously injured in the March 23,

2.008 attack, and he eventually succumbed to his injuries on June 10, 2008. Mrs. McCoy “remained

steadfast by Mr. McCoy’s side” as his condition steadily improved after the March attack. 9th

Special Master Rep. at 211. Ina particularly devastating passage, Mrs. McCoy describes SGT

McCoy’s birthday on June 1, 2008, on which he said his only wish was a kiss from his wife. Decl.

of Tabitha McCoy at 4 61. Sadly, SGT McCoy’s condition quickly deteriorated after his birthday.

9th Special Master Rep. at 213. After experiencing a profound hope that her husband could pull

through, Mrs. McCoy was forced to make what must have been one of the hardest decisions of her

young life: not resuscitating her husband in the event his heart stopped again. Id. On June 10,

2008, just nine days after his twenty-third birthday, SGT McCoy died from his injuries. Based on

the foregoing and other horrific details, the Special Master determined that Mrs. McCoy was

entitled to the 20% upward departure provided for under the framework adopted by the court in

Fritz. The Court agrees that the upward departure is warranted and ADOPTS the recommendation

as to Mrs. McCoy.

Courts in this District have established a separate set of baseline solatium awards for family

members of victims who survived terrorist attacks: Spouses receive $4 million, parents and

children receive $2.5 million, and siblings receive $1.25 million. See Peterson, 515 F. Supp. 2d at

52. Courts have awarded upward departures from those amounts when the victim’s family

members endured especially severe suffering. See, ¢.g., Estate of Brown v. Islamic Republic of

Tran, 872 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43-44 (D.D.C. 2012) (awarding 20% upward departure to victim’s sister

who “suffered a ‘nervous breakdown’ following Anthony’s death for which she sought medical

treatment and was prescribed medication for approximately one year”) (citing Report of the

Special Master (Estate of Anthony Brown), No. 08-cv-531-RCL, ECF No. 51, at 11-13, 17). The

Special Master applied this “Valore/Peterson I’ framework to those family member plaintiffs

whose loved ones survived the EFP attacks.

The rest of the Special Master’s awards for loss of solatium adhere to the Heiser and

Valore/Peterson I framework and are grounded in sound evidentiary principles. See generally

9th Special Master Rep. Thus, the Court ADOPTS, without modification, each of the Special

Master’s remaining recommendations as to solatium damages.

-10-

C. The Estate Plaintiff—Economic Damages

28 U.S.C. § 1605A, like its statutory predecessor 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), establishes a

cause of action for economic damages resulting from an act of state-sponsored terrorism. “The

report of a forensic economist may provide a reasonable basis for determining the amount of

economic damages.” Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F. Supp. 2d 204, 214 (D.D.C. 2012).

Before recommending the adoption of a forensic analysis, the Special Master must first examine

the methodological soundness of the calculations, mindful that “mathematical exactitude is often

impossible,” Bova v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 15-cv-1074-RCL, 2020 WL 2838582, at *11

(D.D.C. May 31, 2020), and then examine “the reasonableness and foundation of the assumptions

relied upon by the expert,” Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 402, to safeguard against “speculation,

contingency, or conjecture.” Bova, 2020 WL 2838582, at *11. The need for scrutiny becomes

enhanced for those claims implicating “[d]epartures from actual pre-injury earnings,” as they

“must be justified and cannot be unduly speculative.” Andler v. Clear Channel Broad., ie. 670

F.3d 717, 727 (6th Cir. 2012).

The Special Master has recommended that economic damages be awarded to the Estate of

Sergeant First Class (“SFC”) Daniel Crabtree, who was killed by an EFP on June 8, 2006. 9th

Special Master Rep. at 203-04. The Special Master reviewed appraisals of the present value of the

economic life of these plaintiffs prepared by Dr. L. Wayne Plumly, Jr., an acknowledged expert in

the field of forensic economics. Jd. at 4, 6; Ex. MMM, Appraisal of Present Value of Economic

Life on Daniel Brian Crabtree (Sept. 26, 2024). The Estate has proven to the satisfaction of the

Special Master, and thus to the satisfaction of this Court, the loss of accretions resulting from his

wrongful death. Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85. The Court therefore ADOPTS, without

-l1-

modification, the Special Master’s recommended damage awards for economic loss as to SFC

Crabtree.

Punitive Damages

Finally, plaintiffs have requested an award of punitive damages. ECF No. 63.

Punitive damages serve to punish and deter the actions for which they are awarded, rather

than to compensate the victim. Jn re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d

31, 61 (D.D.C. 2009). In determining the proper punitive damages award, courts evaluate four

factors: “(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.” Acosta v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F. Supp. 2d 15, 30 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908). Though there was some confusion among circuits as to

whether punitive damages were available in 28 U.S.C. § 1605A actions for conduct occurring prior

to the statute’s enactment, such as some of the attacks at issue in the instant case, the Supreme

Court recently answered the question in the affirmative. See Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 140 S.

Ct. 1601, 1608 (2020) (“Congress was as clear as it could have been when it expressly authorized

punitive damages under § 160SA(c) and explicitly made that new cause of action available to

remedy certain past acts of terrorism.”).

This District has developed three primary methods of calculating punitive damages in FSIA

cases. The first, used more commonly in mass-casualty events, involves multiplying the foreign

state’s “annual expenditures on terrorism” by a factor between three and five. See Valore, 700 F.

Supp. 2d at 87-88. The second approach awards a fixed amount of $150 million per affected

family. See Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53, 75 (D.D.C. 2008). The third

-12-

approach involves multiplying the total compensatory damages award by a factor of between one

and five. See Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 77 F. Supp. 3d 57, 73 (D.D.C. 2015). The

multiplier approach is especially appropriate when the defendants “did not directly carry out the

attack, but funded [a proxy actor], [and] it is doubtful whether a large amount . . . would have the

deterrent effect that it might have had in times past.” Cohen v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 268 F.

Supp. 3d 19, 28 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Bluth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 203 F. Supp. 3d 1, 26

(D.D.C. 2016)).

The nature of Iran’s acts is heinous and the extent of the harm they caused is tragic. Iran

intentionally supported proxy actors who specifically sought to wreak particularly lethal injury on

U.S. servicemembers and contractors. Nevertheless, the conduct here fits more squarely within

the line of cases awarding punitive damages as a multiplier of compensatory damages. Given that

punitive damages calculated as “a multiplier of three” of the compensatory damages is “the usual

practice in state sponsored terrorism cases,” see Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 14-cv-01946

(RCL), 2018 WL 4680270, at *17 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2018), and the plaintiffs have not offered a

reason to depart from this practice, this Court concludes that the plaintiffs are entitled to punitive

damages in the amount three times the compensatory damages, to be apportioned according to

each plaintiffs share of the compensatory damages. See id. (awarding punitive damages equal to

three times compensatory damages for Syria and Iran’s sponsorship of a bombing in Jerusalem

that killed fifteen people, including a plaintiff); Gill v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 249 F. Supp. 3d

88, 105-06 (D.D.C. 2017) (awarding punitive damages equal to three times compensatory

damages for plaintiffs injured in a shooting in Israel); Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 882 F. Supp.

2d 23, 50-51 (D.D.C. 2012) (using a three times multiplier in a case involving a terrorist bombing);

-13-

Bland y. Islamic Republic of Iran, 831 F. Supp. 2d 150, 158 (D.D.C. 2011) (same); Murphy, 740

F. Supp. 2d at 82-83 (same).

WI. CONCLUSION

This Court acknowledges plaintiffs’ efforts to hold Iran responsible for these particularly

calculated and destructive acts of terror. This Court hopes that the victims and their families may

find some measure of solace from this Court’s final judgment.

The Court finds defendants responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs and thus

liable under the FSIA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception for $35,500,000 in compensatory

damages, $55,850,000 in solatium damages, and $2,161,226.14 in economic-loss damages for a

total award of $93,511,226.14.

A separate Order and Judgment consistent with these findings shall be entered this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED thisZ.7 fay of April, 2025. “A ijees RA

‘ Royce C. Lamberth

United States District Judge

-14-