Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TIMOTHY KARCHER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 16-00232 (CKK)

v- (Redacted Public Version)

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,

Defendant.

__|

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

(May 6, 2025)

I. INTRODUCTION

This Memorandum Opinion addresses the Special Master’s [211] Sealed Report and

Recommendation Regarding Damages as to injuries sustained by 45 Plaintiffs.’ These Plaintiffs

comprise estates or family members of twelve decedents who were killed in attacks that utilized

Explosively Formed Penetrators (““EFPs”), for which Defendant Islamic Republic of Iran (“TIran”’)

and its proxies bear responsibility.2 See Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civil Action No. 16-

232, 2021 WL 133507 (Jan. 14, 2021) (discussing in detail the circumstances surrounding the

attacks on these twelve decedents). That opinion is incorporated by reference herein. The Special

Master’s Report and Recommendation addresses the following categories of damage awards: (1)

economic loss damages for four Estate Plaintiffs, including damages relating to funeral expenses

| A redacted version of the Report and Recommendation was filed at ECF No. 214. This

Memorandum Opinion and Order has minor redactions to protect confidential medical

information.

* Special Master Report, ECF No. 211 addresses claims related to decedents Daniel Crabtree,

Ryan Haupt, Eric Kruger, Jang Ho Kim, Brennan Gibson, John Sullivan, Daniel Fuentes, Virgil

Martinez, Joshua D. Brown, Ryan Balmer, Richard Parker, and Michael Elledge.

for one of those Estate Plaintiffs;? and (2) solatium damages by forty-one Plaintiffs, who are close

family members of the twelve decedents.* Having considered the Report and Recommendation of

the Special Master — which is both comprehensive and supported by the record evidence — as well

as the Plaintiffs’ [212] Notice of Non-Objections to the Special Master’s Report and

Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS the Special Master’s recommended damages awards. A

separate consolidated Order and Judgment will be issued subsequently.

Il. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After holding a three-day bench trial, on August 26, 2019, the Court granted default

judgment against Iran as to the claims of multiple Plaintiffs injured in bellwether attacks and the

claims of Plaintiffs representing individuals killed in the bellwether attacks. See Orders, ECF Nos.

93 & 105; see Aug. 26, 2019 Mem. Op., ECF No. 94 and Sept. 11, 2019 Mem. Op., ECF No. 106

(incorporated by reference herein). The Court made no finding regarding damages for any of those

bellwether Plaintiffs but instead appointed Alan Balaran, Esq. as a Special Master to prepare

reports and recommendations on damages for these Plaintiffs. See Sept. 9, 2019 Order and Admin.

Plan, ECF No. 102. Before the Special Master’s reports and recommendations had been

completed, the Court ordered Mr. Balaran to include his findings on non-economic damages for

eight non-bellwether Plaintiffs who were injured in EFP attacks for which the Court subsequently

3 Plaintiffs claiming economic damages are the Estates of Jang Ho Kim, Daniel Fuentes, Joshua

D. Brown, and Ryan A. Balmer.

4 Plaintiffs claiming solatium damages are: Judy Ann Crabtree; Ronald Wayne Crabtree; Debra

Wigbels; Ronald William Crabtree; Lynn Forehand; Lance Haupt, Sabrina Cumbe; Tifany Haupt

Thompson; Rhonda Haupt; Caro] Kruger; Lawrence Kruger; Douglas Kruger; Kristy Kruger;

Sangsoon Kim; Seop Kim; Michelle Kim; Linda Gibson; John Gibson; Sean Elliott; Travis

Gibson; Stephanie Gibson Webster; Estate of Deborah Beavers; Nancy Fuentes; Armando

Fuentes; Julio Fuentes; Tatyana Fuentes; Estate of Rebecca J. Oliver; Daniel Oliver; Elizabeth

Masterson; Danielle Sweet; Anthony Balmer; Gabrielle Balmer; Scott Hood; Estate of Dixie

Flagg; Flora Hood; Estate of William Parker; Meghan Parker-Crockett; Stephanie Hood Howard;

Cheyenne Flagg; Marion Crimens; and Timothy Elledge.

2

found Iran liable. See Jan. 14, 2021 Order, ECF No. 125; see also Jan.14, 2021 Order granting

default judgment; Jan. 14, 2021 Sealed Mem. Op. (incorporated by reference herein) (addressing

73 non-bellwether attacks).

Mr. Balaran’s reports and recommendations were filed under seal, ECF Nos. 146-148, and

after an objection by the Plaintiffs - regarding the methodology employed to calculate EFP

damages — the Special Master revised his EFP Damages Matrix, see ECF No. 169 (proposed

modification). Plaintiffs filed their [170] Notice of Non-Objection, and the Court issued its [171]

Memorandum Opinion and [172] Order adopting the analysis and [revised] damages calculations.

Thereafter, this Court appointed four additional Special Masters “to administer damages

proceedings for the Plaintiffs in this case [who were] awarded default judgment, [but] who were

not part of this Court’s remit to Mr. Alan L. Balaran.” Oct. 3, 2024 Order and Admin. Plan, ECF

No. 179, at 1. The four Special Masters were directed to provide their Reports and

Recommendations on a rolling basis. Jd. at 3. Special Master Franklin Rosenblatt’s Report and

Recommendation — which is the subject of this Memorandum Opinion and Order — addresses

claims made “by 45 of the Plaintiffs implicated in the 73 attacks for which the Court found the

Defendant, the Islamic Republic of Iran, liable in its January 14, 2021, Order, ECF No. 123.”

Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 211, at 8.

II. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, Special Master Rosenblatt noted that this Court has jurisdiction

over Plaintiffs’ claims insofar as all the direct victims of the attacks were either “member(s] of the

armed forces” or “employee[s] of the Government of the United States, or of an individual

performing a contract awarded by the United States Government, acting within the scope of the

employee’s employment,” and furthermore, “all family member Plaintiffs are United States

citizens.” Id.at 10; see 28 U.S.C. §1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii) (regarding subject matter jurisdiction).

As noted herein, this Court has determined previously that Iran was liable for Plaintiffs’

injuries under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Pursuant to Section 1605A(c), Plaintiffs’ damages “may

include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.” 28 U.S.C. §

1605A(c). “Under the FSIA, a ‘foreign states shall be liable in the same manner and to the same

extent as a private individual under like circumstances.’ Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to the

typical array of compensatory damages that may be awarded against tortfeasors in the plaintiffs’

respective domiciliary states.” Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 51 (D.D.C.

2007) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §1606). In this case, therefore, “[t]he only remaining questions,

therefore, are what type of damages Plaintiffs are entitled to recover and in what amounts.” Fritz

v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 324 F. Supp. 3d 54, 59 (D.D.C. 2018).

In the instant case, Plaintiffs’ claims for damages may be categorized as follows: (1)

economic loss brought by the Estates of Plaintiffs Kim, Fuentes, Brown, and Balmer; (2) solatium

claims brought by 41 family members of the twelve deceased victims; and (3) punitive damages.

The issue of punitive damages was not referred to the Special Master; rather, Plaintiffs have

requested punitive damages in their [8] Amended Complaint and through their [191] Motion in

Support of Punitive Damages, which was granted by this Court. See Memorandum Opinion, ECF

No. 196 (incorporated by reference herein) (awarding punitive damages, which are to be computed

by multiplying each Plaintiff’s compensatory damages by three). Accordingly, punitive damages

for the Plaintiffs addressed in this Opinion and Order wil! be calculated subsequently, in a manner

consistent with this Court’s Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 196. The Court turns now to the

Special Master’s recommendations regarding Plaintiffs’ other claims for damages.

A. Economic Loss Damages

“Section 1605A explicitly provides that foreign state-sponsors of terrorism are liable to

victims for economic losses stemming from injuries or death sustained as a result of the foreign

state’s conduct.” Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Republic. 167 F. Supp. 3d 22, 48 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing

28 U.S.C. § 1605A)(c)). Plaintiffs may prove economic losses through submission of a forensic

expert’s report. Id. at 49, see Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F. Supp. 2d 204, 214 (D.D.C.

2012) (The report of a forensic economist may provide a reasonable basis for determining the

amount of economic damages in an FSIA case.”) The Special Master first must examine the

methodological soundness of the calculations, with the idea 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). Then, the Special Master may examine “reasonableness and foundation

of the assumptions relied upon by the experts. Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 78 F. Supp. 3d

379, 402 (D.D.C. 2015), to protect against “speculation, contingency, or conjecture.” Bova, 2020

WL 2838582, at *11.

Throughout his Special Master Report and Recommendation, Special Master Rosenblatt

documented the two expert reports by Wayne Plumly, Jr., Ph.D. and Steven A. Wolf, CPA, CFE,

ABV/CFF, ASA that he utilized in support of calculating Plaintiffs’ economic loss claims. Both

economic experts are well-qualified, and both have previously provided expert reports on

economic losses in numerous terrorism cases, where such loss calculations derived therefrom have

been adopted by courts, including this Court. Based on a review of the record in this case, the

Court finds these calculations and assumptions made by the forensic economist experts in their

reports to be reasonable. Nor have Plaintiffs objected to any of the economic loss calculations.

Accordingly, the economic loss damages recommended by the Special Master in his Report and

Recommendation on behalf of the Estates of Plaintiffs Kim, Fuentes, Brown, and Balmer are

approved by this Court.

The Court notes that, as part of the claim for economic loss damages, the Estate of Ryan

Balmer requested reimbursement of unreimbursed funeral expenses, including prejudgment

interest, in the total amount of $6,594.00. Funeral expenses may be awarded as part of economic

damages pursuant to Section 1605A(c), along with prejudgment interest. Colvin v. Syrian Arab

Republic, 363 F. Supp. 3d 141, 160-61 (D.D.C. 2019); Belkin y, Islamic Republic of Iran, 667 F.

Supp. 2d 8, 24 (D.D.C. 2009) (same). Regarding prejudgment interest, the Special Master

explained that “[t]his Circuit has held that an appropriate measure of what rate to use when

calculating prejudgment interest is ‘the prime rate for each year, i.e., the rate banks charge for

short-term unsecured loans to credit-worthy customers.’” Report and Recommendation, ECF No.

195-1, at 39 (quoting Oldham v. Korean Air Lines Co., 127 F.3d 43, 54 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing

Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 84 F.3d 446, 450 (D.C. Cir.), cert den., 519 U.S. 1028

(1996)). Accordingly, considering the applicable case law, the Court adopts the Special Master’s

recommended calculation of funeral expenses with prejudgment interest, which is included in

claim for economic damages made by the Estate of Ryan Balmer.

In sum, the Court adopts the Special Master’s recommended economic damages for the

Estates of Jang Ho Kim, Daniel Fuentes, Joshua D. Brown, and Ryan A. Balmer.

B. Solatium Damages

A claim for solatium is “a claim for the mental anguish, bereavement and grief that those

with a close personal relationship to a decedent experience as a result of the decedent’s death, as

well as the harm caused by the loss of the decedent, society and comfort.” Belkin, 667 F. Supp. 2d

at 22 (citation omitted). Under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the FSIA, “the award of

solatium damages to the close relatives of terrorism victims” is expressly contemplated. Fritz, 324

F. Supp. 3d at 61-62 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)). It is presumed that “family members in direct

lineal relationship suffer compensable mental anguish[.]” Kaplan v. Hezbollah, 213 F. Supp. 3d

27, 38 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Judges in this District Court have employed “a general framework for the calculation of

proper damage awards in FSIA cases” based on principles articulated in the Heiser case. Oveissi

v, Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F. Supp. 2d 16, 26 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Heiser v. Republic of

Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 269-270). Under this general framework, spouses of deceased victims

receive $8 million; parents and children receive $5 million; and siblings receive $2.5 million.

Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Peterson IT’), 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 52 (D.D.C. 2007); Valore

y. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 85 (D.D.C. 2010); Heiser v. Islamic Republic of

Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229, 269 (D.D.C. 2006). “Spouses typically receive greater damage awards

than parents, who, in turn, receive greater awards than siblings,” and “families of victims who have

died are typically awarded greater damages than families of victims who remain alive.” Heiser,

466 F. Supp. 2d at 269 (internal quotation marks omitted).°

The Court notes also that there is some inconsistency in the amounts awarded to children

of deceased victims with $3 million indicated as the amount to be awarded in cases such as

5 “Relatives of surviving servicemen receive[ ] awards valued at half of the awards to family

member of th[ose] deceased[.]” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79

(D.D.C. 2010); see also Davis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 882 F. Supp. 2d 7, 14 (D.D.C. 2014)

(finding that, for the immediate family members of a victim injured by terrorists, courts typically

adhere to the following scale: “$4 million, $2.5 million, $1,5 million, and $1.25 million to

spouses, parents, children and siblings, respectively.” (quotation omitted)).

7

Anderson v, Islamic Republic of Iran, 839 F. Supp. 2d 263, 266 (D.D.C. 2012) (based on the same

amount awarded in Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 271 F. Supp. 2d 286, 301 (D.D.C. 2003));

see also Spencer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 71 F. Supp. 3d 23, 27-28 (D.D.C. 2014) (finding that

‘{alwards of $3 million to the children of deceased victims are typical .. . [while] [cJhildren of a

surviving victim receive $1.5 million on average.”) (citation omitted). In contrast, $5 million was

awarded for children of a deceased servicemember in Heisner, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 318, and Oveissi,

768 F. Supp. 2d at 26, and in Peterson II, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 51-52 (where $2.5 million was

established as the award for children of a surviving servicemember).

In Mwila, the court recognized this inconsistency and stated that:

Courts in this district have differed somewhat on the proper amount awarded to children of

victims. Compare Peterson II, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 51 ($2.5 million to child of injured

victim), with Davis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 882 F. Supp. 2d 7, 14 (D.D.C. 2012) ($1.5

million to child of injured victim). The Court finds the Peterson II approach to be more

appropriate: to the extent such suffering can be quantified, [insofar as] children who lose

parents are likely to suffer as much as parents who lose children.

Mwila, 33 F. Supp. 3d 36, 44-45 (D.D.C. 2014). Reviewing the case law on solatium damages,

this Court finds appropriate awards of solatium damages to immediate family members of victims

killed by terrorists in the amounts of $8 million, $5 million, $5 million, and $2.5 million, to

spouses, parents, children, and siblings, respectively.

Step relatives are awarded damages in FSIA cases where they demonstrate that they

functioned as family members who are equivalent to biological relatives. See Valore, 700 F. Supp.

2d at 79-80 (finding that a non-adoptive stepfather was entitled to damages where he and the victim

had a father-son relationship, and they acted as a natural family); Heiser v. Islamic Republic of

Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 20, 29 (D.D.C. 2009) (opining that non-adoptive stepfathers are functionally

the same as biological fathers when they lived in the same household while the victims were minors

and the stepparent treated the children as their own financially, emotionally, and socially). “[T]he

D.C. Circuit has recognized that ‘immediate family members’ may include ‘members of the

victim’s household’ who are ‘viewed as the functional equivalents of immediate family

members.” Fritz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 324 F. Supp. 3d 54, 63 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Bettis

v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325, 335 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).

1. The Special Master’s Recommendations that are Consistent with the Standard

Amounts Awarded

Upon review of the information about each Plaintiff family members set forth in the Report

and Recommendation, the Special Master’s solatium damage awards that correspond to the

amounts found appropriate by the Court — namely, $8 million, $5 million, $5 million, and $2.5

million, to spouses, parents, children, and siblings, respectively — are adopted by this Court. The

Court notes that, in several cases, the solatium damage awards relate to stepparents and half-

siblings, who receive the same amounts as parents ($5 million) and siblings ($2.5 million). The

Court finds these awards warranted by the circumstances of the relationships between the

decedents and those close family members. By way of example, in the case of John Gibson, who

was Brennan Gibson’s stepfather, Mr. Gibson married Brennan Gibson’s mother “when he was

about three” and Brennan Gibson had “little to no contact with his biological father and was raised

by his mother and John.” Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 211, at 48 (internal citations

omitted). Furthermore, “John considered [Brennan] his son, and [Brennan] considered John his

father, eventually legally changing his last name to Gibson.” Jd. J ohn taught Brennan to “ride a

bike, throw a football, toss a frisbee, and bait a hook,” id., and they continued to have a close

relationship throughout Brennan’s adulthood. The Special Master found John to be the “functional

equivalent” of Brennan Gibson’s father, the “test used by courts in this District for granting

solatium awards to ‘members of the victim’s household . . . even if they are not legally or

biologically related.” Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 211, at 49 (quoting Cabrera v.

Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 18-cv-2065 (JDB), 2022 WL 2817730, *42 (D.D.C. July 19, 2022)

(internal citations omitted), adhered to, No. 18-cv-2065 (JDB), 2023 WL 1975091 (D.D.C. Jan.

27, 2023)).

2. The Special Master’s Recommendations that Vary from the Standard Amounts

Awarded

In five cases, the Special Master’s recommended solatium damages deviate upward or

downward from the formula accepted by the Court, but those deviations are well-supported by the

facts and circumstances in the record. The Court notes that “[t]hese [solatium] numbers . . . are

not “set in stone,” Murphy, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 79, but instead are “goalposts,” and “courts should

deviate depending on the circumstances.” Fritz, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 62 (citation omitted). “A

court’s job in a solatium case is to account for various facts and circumstances, and to use those

factors to arrive at an appropriate numerical expression of total pain and grief —encapsulated in

the solatium award.” Oveissi, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 25. Upward departures may be warranted if there

is “evidence establishing a particularly close relationship between the plaintiff and the 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. Downward departures are also possible where the

relationship between the victim and family members is attenuated. Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 87.

In this case, the Special Master agreed with Plaintiffs’ proposed upward departures for

Kristy Kruger (sister of Eric Kruger), [Estate of] William Parker (half-brother of Richard Parker),

Cheyenne Flagg (half-sister of Richard Parker), and the Estate of Rebecca Oliver (the Estate of

Virgil Martinez’s mother). The Special Master disagreed with Plaintiffs’ proffered damages of $5

10

million for Flora Hood, stepmother to Richard Parker, and he recommended instead a 25%

downward departure. The Court agrees with the rationale and amount of the upward and

downward departures recommended by the Special Master, which are described in more detail, as

follows.

Regarding Kristy Kruger, the Special Master recommended a 25% upward departure for

solatium damages “on account of [Kristy’s] extreme reaction to the death of her brother,” which

continues to have long term and serious effects on her daily life. Report and Recommendation,

ECF No. 211, at 37. This departure is commensurate with the upward departures awarded in

Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F. Supp. 2d 16, 21, 29-30 (D.D.C. 2011), which awarded

a 50% upward departure to a formerly “playful and cheery child” who “suffered outbursts of anger

and fits of denial” and “battled alcoholism” throughout adolescence as a coping mechanism. See

also Baker v. Socialist Peoples Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahirya, 775 F. Supp. 2d 48, 68, 83-

84 (D.D.C. 2011) (awarding a 25% upward departure to a brother who battled substance abuse and

depression because of his sister’s death).

Similarly, the Special Master recommended a 25% upward adjustment for both [the Estate

of] William Parker and Cheyenne Flagg, half-brother and half-sister to Richard Parker. The

Special Master found that both satisfied the “functional equivalent” test required for half-siblings

to recover solatium damages. Fritz, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 63. Both half-siblings had an extremely

close relationship with their brother Richard, and his death continues to negatively and seriously

affect their daily lives and their health. The Special Master acknowledged the “extreme suffering

[William] endured as a result of his brother’s death,”

Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 211 at 93, and similarly

“[Cheyenne’s] particularly extreme reaction to her brother’s death,

11

Id. at 99-100: see Baker, supra.; see also Bova v. Islamic

Republic of Iran, Case No. 15-cv-1074 (RCL), 2020 WL 28338582, at *9 (D.D.C. May 31, 2020)

(awarding 20% upward departure to mother who “turned to alcohol, attempted suicide, required

hospitalization to alleviate her deteriorating mental condition, and engaged in a series of abusive

and threatening relationships” after her son’s death); Brown v, Islamic Republic of Iran, 872 F.

Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. July 3, 2012) (awarding 20% upward departure to sister who suffered a

“nervous breakdown” and required a year of medication after her brother's death).

The Special Master recommended a 25% upward departure for the Estate of Rebecca

Oliver. Based on information provided by Daniel Oliver, Rebecca’s husband/Virgil Martinez’s

stepfather, Rebecca had an incredibly close relationship with her son that continued after he began

serving in the military, and her “world fell apart” on the day he died. Report and Recommendation,

ECF No. 211, at 68 (internal citation omitted). Rebecca became despondent and lost her joy in

life, and she subsequently suffered failing physical health, but she would refuse medications and

food, because she lost her will to live. /d. at 68-69. She died of a heart attack on January 2, 2019,

which her husband attributes to grief from Virgil's death. /d. at 67-68. The Special Master looked

for guidance to Kenny v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 22-cv-03299 (TNM), 2024 WL 4297682,

at *10 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2024) , where the court awarded $6.25 million in solatium damages to a

victim’s father whose “health declined in the year and a half following [the victim’s] passing, and

the last months of his life were spent in and out of the hospital,” and crediting testimony that the

father’s “rapidly declining health and ultimate death were likely influenced by the grief of losing

his son.)

The Special Master recommended a 25% downward adjustment in solatium damages for

Flora Hood, stepmother to Richard Parker. The Special Master found that “Flora’s testimony

12

confirms that she functioned as the equivalent of [Richard] Parker’s mother: she married his father

when he was two years old, and [Richard] Parker had his own room in their home.” Report and

Recommendation, ECF No. 211, at 91 (internal citations omitted). This proposed downward

adjustment is based on “Flora’s partially attenuated relationship with [Richard] Parker,” even

though she certainly “loved Richard and. . . cared for him.” Jd. at 91; id. at 89-90 (where Flora

acknowledged that, as a child, Richard spent 1-2 weekends a month with Flora and her husband,

and she attended his school activities, helped with homework, and took him camping/fishing, while

as an adult, she did not see him often between his two deployments although she did write to him

and send care packages when he was deployed). The Special Master concluded that this downward

adjustment ‘“‘account[s] for the limited scope of the relationship between [Flora Hood] and

[Richard] Parker]” and “reflects that Flora’s amount should be lower as compared to [Richard]

Parker’s mother.” Jd. at 91-92: see Fritz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 15-cv-456 (RDM), 2018

WL 5046229, at *22 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2018) (damages may be awarded to both the stepparent and

parent of a victim).

In sum, the Court adopts all the Special Master’s recommended solatium damages for

Plaintiffs Judy Ann Crabtree; Ronald Wayne Crabtree; Debra Wigbels; Ronald William Crabtree;

Lynn Forehand; Lance Haupt; Sabrina Cumbe; Tifany Haupt Thompson; Rhonda Haupt; Carol

Kruger; Lawrence Kruger; Douglas Kruger; Kristy Kruger; Sangsoon Kim; Seop Kim; Michelle

Kim; Linda Gibson; John Gibson; Sean Elliott; Travis Gibson; Stephanie Gibson Webster; Estate

of Deborah Beavers; Nancy Fuentes; Armando F uentes; Julio Fuentes; Tatyana Fuentes; Estate of

Rebecca J. Oliver; Daniel Oliver; Elizabeth Masterson; Danielle Sweet; Anthony Balmer;

Gabrielle Balmer; Scott Hood; Estate of Dixie Flagg; Flora Hood; Estate of William Parker;

13

Meghan Parker-Crockett; Stephanie Hood Howard; Cheyenne Flagg; Marion Crimens; and

Timothy Elledge.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ efforts to hold Iran responsible for the acts of terror

that resulted in injury and/or death to persons serving in the military and/or working for the

Government and appreciates that there is no amount of money that can truly compensate the

servicemembers/civilians and members of their family. Based on the explanation set forth herein,

the Court finds Defendant responsible for the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs and liable under the

FSIA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception for damages based on economic loss, conscious pain

and suffering, and solatium. Accordingly, it is this 6th day of May 2025,

ORDERED that the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation by Special Master

Rosenblatt, and it is further

ORDERED that by May 9, 2025, Plaintiffs shall provide this Court with a chart, which lists

the 45 Plaintiffs and the damage amounts set forth in the Special Master’s Report and

Recommendation, as adopted herein, and which calculates punitive damages in accordance with

the formula used by the Court in its [196] Memorandum Opinion, and which totals the damages.

Upon receipt thereof, this Court will issue its Order and Judgment, with that chart attached thereto.

fopp of as Pong

ihe K bee sth,

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14