1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ci v il A ction No. 19-3835 ( JDB )

Civil A ction No. 18-2065 ( JDB )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Between 2006 and 2019, a terrorist Syndicate comprising al

- Qaeda, the Taliban, the Kabul Attack Network , and the Haqqani Network ( collectively, 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. This Court previously entered default judgment for certain “bellwether” plaintiffs, adopt ed an administrative plan to govern further proceedings, and appointed special masters to make recommendations as to the remaining plaintiffs. The present opinion concerns plaintiffs’ motion AUGUST CABRERA et al., Plaintiffs,

v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Defendant.

MARK ZAMBON et al., Plaintiffs,

v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Defendant.2 for default judgment as to the plaintiffs in “Tranche 1.” See Afghanistan- Based Pls.’ Mot. For Default J. for Tranche 1 Pls. [ECF No. 231] (“Mot.”). On May 31, 2024, the Court entered an order granting default judgment to 653 of these “Tranche 1” plaintiffs and indicated that an opinion would be forthcoming. Order [ECF No. 264] (“Tranche 1 Order”). The Court now elaborates on its reasoning as to the claims of those 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 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 bellw ether 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 “solati um awards,” which offer compensation for “the3 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 soci ety and comfort.” Id. (cleaned up). O n 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 (“ Cabrera II ”) , Civ. A. No. 19

- 3835 (JDB), 2023 WL 3496303, at *4–12 (D.D.C. May 16, 2023).
T he 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 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 th e 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 (the “Tranche 1 special masters”) . Order Appointing Special Masters [ECF No. 129]. The special masters submitted their reports on August 1, 2023. See Mot. , Exs. 1

– 10. On February 29, 2024 , the Court issued an opinion awarding damages to 125 of the Tranche 1 plaintiffs included in Special Master Broom’s4 report. Cabrera v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“ Cabrera III ”), Civ. A. No. 19

- 3835 (JDB), 2024 WL 864092 (D.D.C. Feb. 29, 2024). On May 31, 2024, the Court awarded judgment to 653 plaintiffs assigned to the Tranche 1 special masters. See Tranche 1 Order. The Court now addresses those judgments , wh ich will resolve the claims of all but sixteen Tranche 1 plaintiffs. 1
II. Subject
- Matter Jurisdiction and Liability 2 This Court previously found that ( 1 ) a terrorist Syndicate operated in Afghanistan during the relevant time period of 200 6– 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 further found that the Syndicate was responsible for the thirty

three attacks associated with Special Master Broom’s report

. Cabrera III , 2024 WL 864092 , at *2–3. The Court now finds that the Syndicate was likewise responsible for the attacks associated with the plaintiffs listed in the Tranche 1 Order

. 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 through the killing and wounding of American troops. Cabrera I , 2022 WL

1 The Court requested and received further briefing regarding nineteen plaintiffs, see Order [ECF No. 262] and Response to Court’s Order [ECF No. 268] (“ Supp. Dec. ”) . The Court agrees with plaintiffs’ requests of $5 million to Brian Harper, $2.5 million to Holly Harper, $2.5 million to Joseph Hulsey Jr., $5 million to Lisa Rowe Hicks, $3 .5 million to Steven Walls Sr., and $4 million to George McClintock III, and will award those amounts in its accompanying Order. For reasons the Court will discuss, see inf ra subsection V.C.2., the Court will award Angela Harper $4 million. The Court is in the process of reviewing the claims of the remaining twelve plaintiffs. Additionally, the Court is still considering whether to grant solatium damages to plaintiffs A.P. , L.R.G., Stephanie Hayhurst, and Georgia Priest.

2 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, 81 1 (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 ha s personal jurisdiction over Iran.5 2817730, 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. T he Syndicate was responsible for each of the following attacks associated with the plaintiffs listed in the Tranche 1 Order

. 1. July 5, 2007 IED Attack, Paktika Province 2. July 23, 2007 IED Attack, Paktika Province 3. August 28, 2007 Suicide Attack, Paktia Province 4. November 12, 2007 IED Attack, Paktika Provin ce 5. December 12, 2007 IED Attack, Paktika Province 6. January 2, 2008 Complex Attack, Khost Province 7. May 9, 2008 Complex Attack, Paktia Province 8. May 28, 2008 IED Attack, Khost Province 9. June 3, 2008 IED Attack, Khost Province 10. June 18, 2008 RPG Attack , Paktika Province 11. September 17, 2008 IED Attack , Paktia Province 12. February 10, 2009 S uicide Attack , Khost Province 13. March 8, 2009 IED Attack, Paktia Province 14. June 2, 2009 IED A ttack , Paktia Province 15. June 20, 2009 Complex Attack , Khost Province 16. September 4, 2009 Complex Attack, Paktika Province 17. September 30, 2009 Suicide Attack, Khost Province 18. November 4, 2009 Complex Attack, Paktika Province 19. July 10, 2010 IED Attack, Paktika Province 20. December 2, 2010 IED Attack, Khost Province 21. December 5, 2010 Suicide Attack, Paktia Province 22. March 19, 2011 Complex Attack, Khost Province 23. July 10, 2011 Complex Attack, Paktika Province 24. July 29, 2011 IED Attack, Paktia Province 25. October 14, 2011 IED Attack, Khost Province 26. April 3, 2012 IED A ttack, K host Province 27. May 6, 2012 IED A ttack, Paktia Province 28. June 1, 2012 Complex Attack, Khost Province 29. August 1, 2012 Complex Attack, Paktika Province 30. August 7, 2012 Insider Attack, Paktia Province 31. October 1, 2012 Suicide Attack, Khost Province 32. November 3, 20 12 IED Attack, Paktia Province 33. November 16, 2012 IED At tack, Paktika Province 34. June 23, 2013 IED Attack, Paktika Province 35. September 21, 2013 Insider Attack, Paktia Province 36. September 26, 2013 Insider Attack, Paktia Province 37. April 12, 2007 IED A ttack, Ghazn i Province 38. May 20, 2008 IED Attack, Ghazni Province6 39. October 16, 2009 IED A ttack, Ghazni Province 40. November 5, 2009 IED A ttack, Ghazni Province 41. February 27, 2011 IED A ttack, Ghazni Province 42. September 1, 2012 F ire A ttack, Ghazni Province 43. July 30, 2013 F ire Attack , Logar Province 44. August 12, 2013 IED A ttack, Logar Province 45. July 7, 2009 IED A ttack, Herat Province 46. February 5, 2010 IED A ttack , Badghis Province 47. September 18, 2010 Small Arms Attack , Faryab Province 48. April 24, 2011 IED A ttack, Badg his Province 49. June 14, 2011 IED A ttack, Farah Province 50. April 4, 2012 Suicide Attack , Faryab Province 51. October 7, 2009 IED Attack , Helmand Province 52. October 9, 2009 IED Attack , Helmand Province 53. October 20, 2009 IED Attack , Helmand Province 54. November 13, 2009 IED Attack , Helmand Province 55. December 1, 2009 IED Attack , Helmand Province 56. February 1, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 57. March 1, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 58. March 24, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 59. May 22, 2010 IED Attack , Helma nd Province 60. May 27, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 61. August 29, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 62. December 1, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 63. August 10, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province 64. June 4, 2009 Complex Attack , Kapisa Province 65. December 9, 2007 IED Attack , Helmand Province 66. January 9 , 2008 IED Attack , Helmand Province 67. September 29, 2008 IED Attack , Helmand Province 68. February 8, 2009 IED Attack , Helmand Province 69. June 8, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 70. June 10, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 71. July 19, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 72. July 27, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 73. August 21, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 74. October 15, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 75. October 19, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 76. October 23, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 77. December 14, 2010 IED Attack , Helmand Province 78. January 29, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province 79. February 5, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province 80. February 17, 201 1 IED Attack , Helmand Province 81. April 7, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province 82. April 28, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province 83. June 6, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province 84. June 12, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province7 85. August 25, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province 86. October 27, 2011 IED Attack , Helmand Province 87. March 27, 2012 IED Attack , Helmand Province 88. June 13, 2012 IED Attack , Helmand Province 89. July 19, 2012 IED Attack , Helmand Province 90. August 1, 2012 IED Attack , Helmand Province 91. February 22, 2013 IED Attack , Helmand Province 92. October 23, 2007 Small Fire Arms Attack, Kunar Pro vince 93. January 7, 2008 IED Attack, Nangarhar Province 94. September 19, 2008 IED Attack, Kunar Province 95. January 17, 2009 Complex Attack, Kunar Province 96. July 24, 2009 Complex Attack, Nuristan Province 97. June 7, 2010 IED Attack, Kunar Province 98. June 25, 2010 Complex Attack, Kunar Province 99. July 10, 2010 Complex Attack, Kunar Province 100. August 17, 2010 IED Attack, Kunar Province 101. June 4, 2011 IED Attack, Laghman Province 102. September 25, 2011 IED Attack, Laghman Province 103. June 17, 2007 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 104. August 1, 2009 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 105. January 3, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 106. April 17, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 107. July 15, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 108. August 8, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar P rovince 109. November 17, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 110. September 14, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 111. September 18, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 112. September 18, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 113. September 26, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 114. May 23, 2012 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 115. May 30, 2012 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 116. June 12, 2012 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 117. May 14, 2013 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 118. May 14, 2013 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 119. June 2, 2013 IED Attack, Nimroz Province 120. September 4, 2008 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 121. June 19, 2009 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 122. August 27, 2009 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 123. September 14, 2009 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 124. October 15, 2009 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 125. October 17, 2009 IED A ttack, Kandahar Provinc e 126. March 30, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 127. June 7, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 128. August 30, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 129. September 9, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 130. September 16, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province8 131. September 16, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 132. October 4, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 133. October 12, 2010 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 134. February 20, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province s 135. May 26, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 136. July 16, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 137. October 21, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 138. May 4, 2013 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 139. October 5, 2013 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 140. 1/18/2009 Suicide Attack, Kabul Province 141. 5/20/ 2009 IED Attack, Kabul Province 142. 4/27/2011 Insider Attack, Kabul Province 143. December 15, 2012 IED Attack, Kabul Province 144. February 10, 2014 Suicide Attack, Kabul Province 145. November 24, 2014 IED Attack, Kabul Province 146. January 29, 2015 Insider Attack, Kabul Province 147. August 22, 2015 Suicide Attack, Kabul Province 148. April 18, 2007 Small Arms Attack, Kabul Province 149. May 30, 2007 Anti

- Aircraft Attack, Helmand Province 150. June 21, 2008 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 151. July 2, 2009 Small Arms Attack, Helmand Province 152. August 18, 2009 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 153. October 16, 2009 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 154. October 27, 2009 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 155. February 13, 2010 Suicide Attack, Kandahar Province 156. February 21, 2010 Small Arms Attack, Helmand Province 157. June 9, 2010 RPG Attack, Helmand Province 158. June 18, 2010 Complex Attack, Helmand Province 159. July 13, 2010 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 160. July 30, 2010 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 161. August 11, 2010 S mall Arms Attack, Kandahar Province 162. August 28, 2010 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 163. September 6, 2010 Indirect Fire Attack, Kandahar Province 164. September 17, 2010 RPG Attack, Kandahar Province 165. April 28, 2011 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 166. May 12, 2011 I nsider Attack, Helmand Province 167. June 15, 2011 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 168. July 15, 2011 RPG Attack, Helmand Province 169. July 17, 2011 Complex Attack, Kandahar Province 170. August 25, 2011 IED Attack, Kandahar Province 171. August 28, 2011 Complex Attack, Kandaha r Province 172. October 10, 2011 Indirect Fire Attack, Kandahar Province 173. October 13, 2011 Small Arms Attack, Helmand Province 174. November 30, 2011 Complex Attack, Helmand Province 175. March 9, 2012 Complex Attack, Helmand Province 176. June 22, 2012 Small Arms Attack, Helmand Province9 177. August 16, 2012 Anti

- Aircraft Attack, Kandahar Province 178. September 15, 2012 Complex Attack, Helmand Province 179. October 13, 2012 Insider Attack, Kandahar Province 180. February 15, 2014 Complex Attack, Helmand Provi nce 181. January 5, 2016 Complex Attack, Helmand Province 182. July 3, 2017 Indirect Fire Attack, Helmand Province 183. July 29, 2019 Insider Attack, Kandahar Province 184. May 31, 2008 IED Attack, Nangarhar Province 185. August 1, 2008 IED Attack, Kunar Province 186. October 14, 2008 IED Attack, Kunar Province 187. November 13, 2008 Suicide Attack, Nangarhar Province 188. October 25, 2009 IED Attack, Laghman Province 189. February 3, 2012 Insider Attack, Nangarhar Province 190. May 18, 2012 Indirect Fire Attack, Kunar Province 191. May 9, 2008 Complex Attack, Kapisa Province 192. October 27, 2008 Suicide Attack, Baghlan Province 193. June 21, 2009 Indirect Fire Attack, Parwan Province 194. July 6, 2009 IED Attack, Kunduz Province 195. August 7, 2009 IED Attack, Kapisa Province 196. June 12, 2010 IED Attack, Kunduz Province 197. June 16, 2010 IED Attack, Kunduz Province 198. July 2, 2010 IED Attack, Parwan Province 199. December 12, 2014 IED Attack, Parwan Province 200. November 12, 2016 Suicide Attack, Parwan Province 201. May 17, 2010 IED Attack, Badghis Province The Court has already held that the Syndicate “likely” or “very likely” maintained operational dominance in each of these provinces during the time of these attacks , see Cabrera I , 2022 WL 2817730, at *6 –27, and Cabrera III , 2024 WL 864092 , at *2

– 3. Based on these findings, as well as the special masters ’ factual findings as to each of the above

- listed attacks, the Court concluded that Iran is liable for these 201 attacks associated with the Tranche 1 Order plaintiffs

. III. Standing To satisfy the standing requirements of the FSIA’s private right of action, each plaintiff
must be a U.S. national, a member of the armed forces, an employee of the U.S. government, or “an individual performing a contract awarded by the United States Government, acting within the scope of the employee’s employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)

. In addition to conferring standing10 to direct victims, t he FSIA also “encompass[es] claims by family members of those injured or killed for the distress caused by their relative’s injuri es.” Force v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 464 F. Supp. 3d 323, 359 (D.D.C. 2020). The special masters determined that each plaintiff listed in the Tranche 1 Order is a U.S. citizen and that each plaintiff was either a service member or U.S.
contractor woun ded in an attack that resulted in an extrajudicial killing, or else an immediate family member ( or the functional equivalent ) of a victim of one of the above

- listed attacks

. The Court adopt ed the special maters’ standing determinations for each plaintiff listed in the Tranche 1 Order but will further expand on one plaintiff, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion in Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 94 F.4th 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
In Borochov, the D.C. Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605 A only confers jurisdiction over

a claim if the relevant attack resulted in a completed extrajudicial killing

. Id. at 1060. Accordingly, a plaintiff injured in one of the Syndicate’s attacks only has standing to sue if the Syndicate succeeded in committing an extrajudicial killing during the relevant attack, not if the Syndicate merely attempted, but failed, to commit such a killing . A s relevant here, an “extrajudicial killing” means “ a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. ” Han Kim v. Democratic People ’s Republic of
Korea , 774 F.3d 1044, 1045–46 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The Court therefore consider ed whether SPC Daus Hempker , the lone U.S. serviceman wounded in a September 16, 2010 attack, has standing under Borochov to bring his claim for pain and suffering. The Court determined that he has standing. Although plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that a U.S. s ervice m ember was killed in the attack that injured SPC Hempker , plaintiffs have provided evidence that two Afghani soldiers

— members of the Coalitio n Force

—11 were killed in the attack. Rep. & Recs. b y Special Master Brad Pigott [231-8] (“Pigott Rep.”) at *89

. The Court is satisfied that the killings of any Coalition Force members were “not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court.” Han Kim , 774 F.3d at 1045

– 46. And this Court previously found that “Iran intended for its material support for the Syndicate to enable lethal attacks on American and Coalition forces, and it provided that support to further its own long

- term geopolitical goals .” Cabrera I , 2022 WL 2817730 , at *41

. Because the Syndicate intended to kill Coalition Force members, whether or not the member was American, the September 16, 2010 attack did not “ fail [] to kill any of its intended victims ,” Borochov , 94 F.4th at 1056, but rather successfully resulted in an extrajudicial killing. SPC Hempk er’s injuries

were thus “caused by an act of extrajudicial killing , ” id. at 1060 –61 (cleaned up) , so he has standing to bring his claim.
IV. Pain and Suffering Damages To determine pain

- and

- suffering awards , courts consider factors such as “the severity of the pain immediately following the injury, the length of hospitalization, and the extent of the impairment that will remain with the victim for the rest of his or her life.” O’ Brien v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 853 F. Supp. 2d 44, 46 (D.D.C. 2012) ( cleaned up ). It is difficult to quantify the pain and suffering of survivors of terrorist attacks; a court’s “primary consideration is to ensure that ‘individuals w ith similar injuries receive similar awards.’” Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 77 F. Supp. 3d 57, 70 (D.D.C. 2015) (citation omitted) ; Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“ Peterson II ”), 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 54 (D.D.C. 2007) (“[T] he Court must take pains to ensure that individuals with similar injuries receive similar awards .”). In light of the need for uniformity, this
Court— along with other judges in this District —has endorsed the Peterson II framework as a

“ general framework for assessing pa in and suffering damages for direct victims of terrorist12 attacks.” Cabrera I , 2022 WL 2817730, at *47 (quoting Sheikh v. Republic of Sudan, 485 F. Supp. 3d 255, 268 (D.D.C. 2020)). Under this framework, courts award a baseline of $5 million to “individuals who suffer severe physical injuries, such as compound fractures, serious flesh wounds, and scars from shrapnel, as well as lasting and severe psychological pain,” varying upward to $7– $12 million “[w]here physical and psychological pain is mor e severe . . . such as where victims suffered relatively more numerous and severe injuries, were rendered quadriplegic, partially lost vision and hearing, or were mistaken for dead,” and varying downward to $1.5

– $3 million “where the victim suffers severe emotional injury accompanied by relatively minor physical injuries.” Wamai v. Republic of Sudan, 60 F. Supp. 3d 84, 91 (D.D.C. 2014). The special masters considered the evidence presented by direct

- victim plaintiffs and recommended damages awards. Most o f the recommendations are in line with the Peterson II baselines but some reflect modest variances. The Court adopted the recommendations of the special masters as to the Tranche 1 Order plaintiffs except as outlined below.

• Special Master Saltzburg recommended awarding $5 million to SPC Jesse Watson , who suffers from “severe combat

- related PTSD,” traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) , head pain, and neuropathy due to nerve damage

. Special Master’s Rep. & Recs. Regarding 187 Pls. [E CF No. 231 -9] (“ Saltzburg Rep. ”) at *46–47. B ecause SPC Watson’s injuries are primarily emotional and mental , rather than physical, the Court award ed him $3 million in line with the plaintiff s in Peterson who suffered relatively minor physical injuries but had lasting and severe psychological injuries.
Peterson II , 515 F. Supp. 2d at 55 ; see also Wamai , 6 0 F. Supp. 3d at 92 (awarding $3 million to plaintiff who suffer s “ severe hearing loss in both ears ” and has “ severe13 emotional damage ”); id. (awarding $2 million to plaintiff who “escaped with only lacerations” but “suffer[s] from severe emotional damage”)

.

• Special Master Saltzburg recommended awarding $9 million to CPL Raul Olivares Jr, who suffered facial laceration, c ompound fractures to both his left and right fibula and tibia bones, and a calcaneus fracture to his right ankle. Saltzburg Rep. at *144

– 46. CPL Olivares spent close to two years rehabbing at the Wounded Warriors Battalion. Id. at *145. The Court awarded him $7.5 million, in line with the award given to similar Peterson II plaintiffs. See 515 F. Supp. 2d at 54 –56 (awarding $7.5 million to plaintiffs who, in addition to suffering “lasting and severe psychological problems,” also suffered “a broken femur, hand and pelvis bone, and

. . . a left foot [that] was turned completely backwards ,” or “lo ss of sight in one eye, a perforated right eardrum resulting in some hearing loss, and a shrapnel injury to the back of his right thigh,” or “ a subdural hemato ma, a perforated right eardrum, crushed left ankle, collapsed left lung, and other shrapnel wounds that became infected ”).

• Special Master Byrne recommended awarding $9 million to CPL Jonathan Cleary, who was in a coma for two months, underwent the amputation of one leg, and suffers from PTSD and TBI

. Special Master Christopher A. Byrne’s Rep. & Recs. [ECF No. 231 -2] (“ Byrne Rep.”) at *231–34. Special Master Byrne reached this

rec ommendation by comparing CPL Cleary’s injuries to the injuries of two servicemembers included in the Court’s bellwether opinion, CPT Timoney and
SGT Lemon

. Id. But t he Court finds that CPL Cleary’s injuries are more similar to, though slightly more sever e than, the plaintiffs in Est ate of Doe v. Islamic14 Republic of Iran, 943 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2013) , and Wamai v. Republic of Sudan , 60 F. Supp. 3d 84 , and so award ed him $8 million. See Doe , 943 F. Supp. 2d at 187 (awarding $7 million to plaintiff who “underwent several surgeries in the months after the bombing ” and “had his leg amputated ”); Wamai , 60 F. Supp. 3d
at 93

– 94 (awarding $7.5 million to plaintiffs who spent weeks in a coma , suffer from brain trauma, and have permanent physical i njuries).

• Special Master Byrne recommended awarding $9 million to SGT Brandon William Tilson Korona, who relies on his wife as a daily caregiver due to his mental and physical injuries, which includes the amputation of one of his legs. Byrne Rep. at *286– 88. The Court award ed him $8.5 million due to his inability to function on his own.

• Special Master Saltzburg recommended awarding $11 million to SSG Darius Johnson, who was severely burned, lost his right arm, stayed in the hospital for over two months, and suffers from nerve pain, among other injuries. S altzburg Rep. at *191– 93. SSG Johnson also suffered for hours after the IED explosion while he waited for assistance. Id. at *191. The Court award ed him $8.5 million due to his ongoing injuries and surgeries, which prevent him from fully functioning in society.

• Special Master Grubbs recommended awarding $10.25 million to LCPL Christopher Van Etten, a double amputee who suffers physical and mental injuries but is still able to walk and continues to go camping. Tranche 1 Special Master’s Rep. & Rec. [ECF No. 231

- 5] (“Grubbs Rep.”) at *203–07 . The Court h as generally awarded plaintiffs who suffered double leg amputations , without15 additional complicating factors, $10 million . The Court thus awarded $10 million
to LCPL Van Etten

.

• Special Master Levy recommended awarding $9 million to SGT Ryan J. Newell, who suffered a broken back and a double leg amputation. Rep. & Rec. Concerning Liability and Damages for Pls. Assigned to Special Master Lester J. Levy [ECF No.
231- 6] (“Levy Rep.”) at *19

– 20. The Court award ed SGT Newell $10 million in line with other plai ntiffs who suffered double leg amputations in this case.

• Special Master Grubbs recommended $10. 75 million to SGT Bradley Ivanchan. Grubbs Rep. at *198

– 201. The Court award ed him $10.5 million, in line with the award the Court adopted for another servicemember in this case, LCPL James Boucher Jr., who

— like SGT Bradley Ivanchan

— lost both of his legs above the knee and suffered more serious injuries than did other double amputee plai ntiffs in this case. See id. at *157–58, *162–63.

• The Court provide d the same $10.5 million award to SGT Adam Hartswick, as opposed to Special Master Meek’s recommend ed $12 million award, in line with other double amputees who also suffered further severe injuries. See Mem. Op. [231- 7] (“Meek Rep.”) at *113 –15.

• The Court further award ed $10.5 million

— rather than the recommended award of $11 million —to LCPL Christopher Billmye r, who underwent amputations on both legs, must use a wheelchair for the rest of his life, and suffers nerve damage in addition to other ailments. Grubbs Rep. at *112, *114–16.

• S pecial Master Meek recommended awarding $13 million to PFC Kevin Trimble, who was induced into a coma for a few days while doctors attempted to manage his16 blood loss and remove shrapnel and whose injuries include a double amputation above the knee and the loss of his left arm above the elbow. Meek Rep. at *85 –87. The Court award ed him $12 million in line with the award the Peterson court granted to a plaintiff whose injuries resulted in permanent quadriplegia. See
Peterson II , 515 F. Supp. 2d at 55.

• Fina lly, the Court addresses the Estate of SPC Jonathan O’Neil. SPC O’Neil survived for approximately 13 days after the attack, although the record cannot confirm his exact level of consciousness during that time. See Byrne Rep. at *103

– 115. Special Master Byrne recommended awarding $10 million to SPC O’Neill; the Court award ed him $7.5 million in line with servicemen in Peterson II who died nearly 8 days after the attack.
V. 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 )).

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 determined

. Cabrera I , 2022 WL 2817730, at *56

– 57.17 Because solatium damages “are by their very nature unquantifiable,” Moradi , 77 F. Supp. 3d at 72, this Court has looked to prior decisions for guidance and endorsed the Peterson II framework, Cabrera I , 2022 WL 2817730, at *47. 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. 2 d at 52. These awards are reduced by half when the plaintiff is a family -member of a surviving victim

. Id. This Court has previously 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”). The special masters co nsidered the evidence presented by family

- member plaintiffs and recommended damages awards . M ost of the recommendations are in line with the Peterso n II baselines but some reflect modest variances. The Court adopted the recommendations of the special masters as to the Tranche 1 Order plaintiffs 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 award upward departures only 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 Co urt now briefly describes18 plaintiffs who experienced unusual circumstances warranting upward departures from the Peterson
II baselines

. 4 The Court first addresses family members who suffered greater than usual harm in the form of suicide attempts and/or hospitalizations for such attempts. As it did in its earlier opinions in this case , the Court found that such circumstances warrant a 10% enhancemen t. See Cabrera III , 2024 WL 864092, at *5

. Accordingly, although the special masters recommended awarding 20% enhancements to these plaintiffs, t he Court award ed 10% enhancements to Joseph Michael Duarte ,

see Grubbs Rep. at *221 –22; Natasha Snyder , see Levy Rep. at * 293; 5 Lauren Ashley Culbreth,

see Meek Rep. at * 311; Patricia Elsner, see id. at * 168; Dennis W. Peters , see Pigott Rep. at * 56; Joshua Michael Prescott , see id. at * 65; Andrew Brown , see id. at * 96; A.T.P. , see Rep. of Special Master C. Jackson Williams [ECF No. 231

- 10] (“Williams Rep.”) at * 337; and April Lyn Anderson, see id. at * 383. 6 The Court also provide d a 10% enhancement to A.J.Q., who developed borderline personality disorder, reactive attachment disorder, and PTSD due to the death of her father SPC Ryan Grady

. See Williams Rep. at *299 –300. A 10% enhancement

— rather than the 20% enhancement the Court awarded to R.C.

— is proper here: unlike R.C., A.J.Q. has not attempted suicide, nor does the record indicate that she dropped out of school as a result of her grief. See

4 The Court agrees with Special Master Byrne that Lisa Murowski

- Dupont is entitled to a 20% enhancement , but the n mistakenly award ed Ms. Murowski

- Dupont a prejudgment award of $ 6 million rather $9 .6 million . The Court amends that award in its accompanying Order.

5 The Court determined that a further enhancement to $3.15 million is not warranted because Ms. Snyder’s “ability to live a normal childhood and pursue a traditional education” was not as disrupted as were the lives of other minor children who received larger awards. See, e.g. , Cabrera I , 2022 WL 2817730, at *50 (“Like the plaintiffs who received upward enhancements in Seli g and Thuneibat , R.C. has been unable to attend traditional schools and has struggled with suicidal thoughts and attempts.”).

6 The Court would have also provided the same enhancement to Bobby Gene Anderson, who was hospitalized for suicide ideations afte r the death of his son, PFC Billy Anderson. Williams Rep. at *383. The Court ultimately decided to award Mr. Anderson the $5 million Peterson II baseline award because the record does not establish whether Mr. Anderson had custody of his son. See infra subsection IV.C.2.19 Cabrera I , 2022 WL 2817730, at *50. And a 10% enhancement is proper for Athena Ann Gordon , the twin sister of SFC Christopher Henderson, Meek Rep. at *37 –38. V arious studies demonstrate

a special bond between twins, and a 10% enhancement here aligns with previous awards in this

case
. Cab rera III , 2024 WL 864092, at *5 (awarding 10% enhancements to two twins). Finally, the Court conclude d that Stephanie Fisher’s unique circumstances warrant a 10% enhancement : after the death of her son, SSG Thomas Kent Fogarty, Ms. Fisher began to raise his two young sons—aged five and three at the time of his death —on her own. Byrne Rep. at *239–40.
B. Older Family Members With regards to the Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs, the Court issued 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 III , 2024
WL 864092 , at * 5 (ci ting Cabrera I , 2022 WL 2817730, at *51, and Cabrera II , 2023 WL 3496303 , at *10). To maintain consistency among the awards of similarly situated individuals, the Court imposed a 20% reduction for parent

- plaintiffs who were at least sixty

- five years old at the time of the relevant attack and to estates of plaintiffs who suffered for shor ter periods of time

. Those plaintiffs include Evelyn Taylor (age 69), John Ewy (age 65), William Nevins (age 66), Gabriel Negron (age 65), Marta Torres (age 65), Clifford E. Ausborn (age 75) , Janice Proctor (age 78), Harriet Sutton (age 69), John Wayne Goldsmith (age 68) , 7 Joe Torian (age 66) , Jimmy Smith (age 74), Elma Garza Palomarez (age 68), Charlotte Ann Reeves (age 77), and the Estate of Tomoe Dunning ( who died within ten years of the a ttack). See Byrne Rep. at *730, *810, *1075; Levy Rep. at * 197, *201 ; Saltzburg Rep. at *363, *673, *703, *1221, *1542, *1550 ; Williams Rep. at

7 Mr. Goldsmith’s pre

- judgment award was listed in the Tranche 1 Order as $4 .5 million , as was his wife Lorie Goldsmith’s award. The Court amends Mr. Goldsmith ’s award to $4 million and Mrs. Goldsmith ’s award to $5 million in its accompanying Order

.20 *171, *1041; Grubbs Rep. at *184. The Court further reduced the award to 86- year - old Gertrude Provost by an ex tra 10 %. See Williams Rep. at *337. Each of these awards maintains consistency with the awards given to similarly situated plaintiffs.
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. Ci rcumstances courts consider include whether the family

- member plaintiff lived with the victim, see id. (“Children who were living with 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)).
1. Children of Direct Victims
T he Court previously applie d downward variances of 40% for children under the age of 1 and 30% for children between the ages of 1 –3, see Cabrera III 2024 WL 864092, at *7 , and continued to apply those variances absent a showing that a particular plaintiff’s relationship with the victim

- parent was either stronger or weaker than expected . The Cou rt thus award ed $3 million
to M.B. (11 months old), L.G.A. (8 months old), and A.R.S. (6 months old) , and award ed $3.5 million to C.F. (3 years old) , T.D.C. (2 years old ), A.L.S. ( 2 years old ), A.M.S. (2 years old), C.S.S. (3 years old ), Gabriel Brandon Landrum (2 years old ), D.L.B. ( 3 years old ), L.A.E.L.B (2 years old), S.L.L.B. ( 3 years old ), B.C.D. ( 3 years old ) , and A.L.H. ( 2 years old ). See Byrne Rep. at *156; Williams Rep. at * 1072; Saltzburg Rep. at *495; Byrne Rep. at *933 ; Special Master Eric Green’s Rep. & Recs. [ECF No. 231

- 3] (“Green Rep.”) at *27 , *52; Grubbs Rep. at * 57 ; Pigott Rep. at *47; Saltzburg Rep. at *58, *86, *91, *1188.21 Similarly, the Court award ed $3.5 million to Tristyn A . Vinson- Hosford, who was raised sol ely by his great -grandparents. Williams Rep. at *766–67. Mr. Vinson

- Hosford last had any contact with his father, SPC Chester W. Hosford, when he was 2 years old

. Id. T he Court concluded that , for present purposes, Mr. Vinson- Hosford is similarly situa ted to a plaintiff who was 2 years old at the time of the victim

- parent’s death. The Court award ed $4 million to Alyssa Sheridan and Andrew Sheridan, who became GySgt Floyd Holley’s stepchildren only one year before his death, but lived with him for severa l years and demonstrated a close relationship with GySgt Holley. Rep. of Special Master Paul G. Griffin [ECF No. 231

- 4] (“Griffin Rep.”) at *53–54

. Due to the limited time Mr. and Ms. Sheridan lived with GySgt Holley as his children, the Court considered departing further in line with plaintiffs who lost their parent prior to the age of three. But the Court concluded that a larger award was proper, given the close familial relationship they shared with GySgt Holley prior to becoming his stepchildren. The Court depart ed downward by only 20% for D.R.M., who was 3 years old when her stepfather Cpl Olivares was injured in an attack , due to the close relationship they currently share.
See Saltzburg Rep. at *148. The Court award ed her $2 mill ion. Finally, the Court decline d to depart downward for children

- plaintiffs who were at least 4 years old at the time of the ir parent’s death and who demonstrated some close relationship and/or memories with their parent . These plaintiffs include K.F. (5 years old ) , Byrne Rep. at *937 ; Owen Southworth (6 years old), Grubbs Rep. at *233; and Logan Southworth ( 7 years old ), id.
2. Parents of Direct Victims
As in its previous opinions, the Court continued to vary downward for parent

- plaintiffs who had a more attenuated parental relationship with the direct victim

. See Cabrera III , 2024 WL22 864092, at *8

. These departures generally resulted in an award of $3.5 million to $4.5 million , depending on the described relationship and the parent’s custody arrangement. The Court awarded $4.5 million to p laintiffs who had custody of their child for most of the victim’s childhood and continued to have regular contact with the victim once they no longer lived together fulltime. These plaintiffs include Robert Watson, who lived with PFC Jason Watson until PFC Watson was 11 years old and then lived with him two weekends a mont h , Byrne Rep. at *563–64; Paul Elmer Jayne, who lived with SPC Ryan Paul Jayne until he was 9 years old and
regu larly saw him after that time , id. at *268 ; William Michael Burley, who lived with SPC Nicholas Burley until SPC Burley was 10 years old and then saw him every other weekend , Green Rep. at 305 –06; Angela Preston, who had primary custody of LCpl Charles Seth Sharp until LCpl Sharp turned 12 years old and then lived with him every other weekend and during the summers , Saltzburg Rep. at 834

– 35 ; Lowell Hanson Jr., who lived with his son LCpl Matthias Ha nson on weekends and holidays until he gained full custody of LCpl Hanson when LCpl Hanson was 15 years old , id. at *935 ; and Richard Dennis , who lived fulltime with CPL Preston Dennis until CPL Dennis was 8 years old and then had custody of his son every other weekend and on holidays , id. at *1130–31. The Court departed further downward and awarded $4 million to plaintiffs who stopped living with their child when the child was young but continued to maintain regular contact with their child. These plaintiffs include Clifford Taylor, who lived fulltime with SSgt Aaron Taylor until Aaron was 3 years old and thereafter had visitation every other weekend and for six weeks during the summ er , Griffin Rep. at 23 ; Terry Lee Mittler who stopped living fulltime with SSG Shaun Mittler when SSG Mittler was 5 years old but continued to have custody every other weekend and on vacations, Levy Rep. at *169 ; Jose Alberto Morgado, who had custody of 2L T23 Travis Morgado during holidays and summers and lived with him for 2 years after 2LT Morgado graduated college , Meek Rep. at *91 ; James Bell, who lived with S S gt Vincent Bell until S S gt Bell was 7 years old and regularly saw him after they stopped living together, Saltzburg Rep. at
1385–86 ; C edric F. Gordon, who only lived with SPC Brittany Gordon after she graduated college, but until then had custody of her every other weekend, on holidays, and during the summers , id. at *1505 ; and Glenn Chisholm , who lived with PFC Benjamin Chisholm during the summers, every other holiday, for a brief period in elementary school, and after high school, Levy Rep. at *45, *231–32. 8 The Court depart ed even further downward when the record indicates that a plaintiff did not maintain regular contact with his or her child. See Cabrera III , 2024 WL 864092 , at *8. The Court thus awarded $3.5 million to Duane Schultz , who stopped living with LCPL Nathaniel Schultz when LCPL Schultz was 4 years old, Grubbs Rep. at 443 –44, and to Calvin D. Jamison , for whom the record is unclear as to how often he saw his son , SGT Ezra Dawson , Levy Rep. at
89–90. The Court also granted between $2 million to $4.5 million to stepparents who

— while acting as the “functional equivalent” of a parent

— did not share as close a traditional child

- parent relationship with the victim

. For instance, the Court provided slight downward variances of 10% for stepparent plaintiffs who had full custody of their s tepchild for a significant p ortion of the child’s life. Such plaintiffs include Kent Alan Skeen s , who raised SPC Jayne starting when SPC Jayne was 9 years old , Byrne Rep. at *271 –72 , and Dan Olmstead, who became SPC Nicholas Burley’s stepfather when SPC Burley was 11 years old , Gree n Rep. at *321 –22 . The Court also awards $4.5 million to John Gregoire Sr, whose path as a stepparent is more complex than that of

8 In making this determination, Court also considered that Mr. Chisolm and his wife appear to be raising PFC Chisholm’s minor child.24 Mr. Skeen or Mr. Olmstead, but nonetheless deserves a similar award . Mr. Gregoire started living with SPC Michael Nance whe n SPC Nance was 3 years old and officially became his stepfather when SPC Nance was 7 years old. Saltzburg Rep. at 1680 –81. Mr. Gregoire and his wife divorced when SPC Nance was 14 years old, but he continued to live with SPC Nance on weekends. Id. at 1681. The Court f ound that he is the functional equivalent of SPC Nance’s father and is entitled to the same amount as stepparents in similar situations. In line with the Court’s earlier opinion, the Court award ed $ 3.5 million to stepparents who lived with the victim fulltime for a period of roughly 3 to 4 years. See Cabrera III , 2024 WL 864092, at *7. Those plaintiffs include Brad Joseph Halliday, who lived with LCpl Carlos Aragon when he was between 17 and 20 years old, Griffin Rep. at *172–73; Ma tthew Allen, who became SPC Corey Bertrand’s stepfather when SPC Bertrand was 15 years old, Williams Rep. at *482 ; and Cecilia Stiles , who lived fulltime with SGT Jonnie L. Stiles for approximately 4 years, beginning when he was 13 years old , id. at *517

. The Court provide d a slight increase from that
amount to Cynthia Hanson, who began living fulltime with LCpl Hanson when he was 15 years old, but who also spent weekends and holidays with him as his stepmother for eight years prior , Saltzburg Rep. at 942–43. The Court thus award ed her $4 million. 9 The Court depart ed further for stepparent plaintiffs whose relationships were even more attenuated. The Court therefore award ed $2.5 million to Karma Chis h olm, who met PFC Chisolm when he was 2 years old and lived with him during the summers and every other holiday ( in addition to a few longer periods interspersed ) , Levy Rep. at *252 –53; $2.5 million to Gus Presto n, who became LCpl Sharp’s stepfather when LCpl Sharp was 12 years old and lived with him every oth er weekend and during the summer , Saltzburg Rep. at *850–51; $2.5 million to David Humpf ,

9 For the same reasons, the Court will award $4 million to Angela Harper, who spent alternate weeks and holidays with LCpl Harper for approximately ten years prior to living with him fulltime. See Supp. Dec. at *2.25 who became SPC Brandon Steffey’s stepfather when SPC Steffey was 15 years old and lived with
him every other weekend and for one week during the summer , Williams Rep. at *578 –79; and $2 million to Rebecca Baker, who became LCpl David Baker’s stepmother when he was seventeen years old, at which point she lived with him half the time, Griffin Rep. at *101–02.
3. Siblings of Direct Victims As half

- siblings are p resumed to recover the same amount as full

- blood siblings , Peterson
II , 515 F. Supp. 2d at 52 , the Court grant ed $2.5 million to half

- siblings who lived with the victim or otherwise demonstrated a close sibling relationship. But the Court departed downwar d for half

siblings who rarely , if ever, lived with the victim , but who still demonstrated some close sibling relationship , and depart ed further downward for half-siblings who never lived with the victim nor indicated a close sibling relationship. Accordi ngly, the Court award ed $2.25 million to A nna Maria Banze and Connor Alexian Pladeck -Morgado , who lived with 2LT Morgado during the

summers , Meek Rep. at *93 –96; $2 million to Azyia Jayne, who never lived with SPC Jayne but credibly describes a relationship with him, Byrne Rep. at *280 ; $2 million to Emily Torian, who seemingly never lived with MSgt Aaron Torian due to their 13- year age gap but describes them as having “g r[own] up together for a period of time,” Saltzburg Rep. at *1557 ; $1.5 million to Z.R.S., who was only 3 months old when SPC Jayne was killed, Byrne Rep. at * 28 1; and $1.5 million to Jeffrey Scott Kuykendall and Larry Kuykendall , who were already 21 and 24 years old when SPC Christopher Talbert was born and who never lived in the same state as him , Green Rep. at *368

– 78.
D. P eterson II Baselines The Court now briefly describes plaintiffs for whom the special masters recommended upward enhancements , but for whom the Court decided to award the Peterson II baseline amounts.26 Special Master Pigott recommended a 20% enhancement for Larry Dean Horns, who suffers from PTSD, suicidal thoughts, high blood pressure, and depression following the death of his s on Christopher Horns, Pigott Rep. at *39–41

. He also recommended the same enhancement for Cheryl Brown, who was diagnosed with clinical depression and spent approximately ten days in a mental health facility following the death of her son SPC Timothy John son, id. at *43–44. Similarly, Special Master Williams recommended 20% enhancement s for Joshua M. Finley, who dropped out of college and suffered from suicidal thoughts after his brother SPC James Finley’s death , 10 f or E lizabeth Ann Martin , who

— due to her extreme distress a t the loss of her brother SPC Wyatt Martin —moved back in with her parents and take s several psychotropic drugs, and for Stewart Perry, who has suicidal idealizations and was temporarily hospitalized due to shock after the death of his son SSG John Perry. Williams Rep. at *18–21, *330– 33, *337. He further recommended a 10% enhancement for Jacob Avneri, who had to leave his job to care for his wife after the death of his stepson PV2 Jair Garcia , which resulted in a difficult financial sit uation for their family. Id. at *52

– 56. Finally, Special Master Saltzburg recommended a 20% enhancement to Joyce A. Brodeur, who was briefly admitted to the hospital under suspicion of a heart attack following the death of her son, Maj David Brodeur. Saltzburg Rep. at 60. While Mr. Horns , Ms.
Brown , Mr. Finley, Ms. Martin, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Avneri credibly describe “serious detrimental effects,” the Peterson II framework takes such effects into consideration. See, e.g. , Cabrera III , 2024 WL 864092, at *8–9. Accordingly , the Court concluded that an enhancement from the
Peterson II baseline is not warranted and that the baseline award aligns with the awards given to similarly situated plaintiffs

.

10 The Special Master also based his recommendation o n Mr. Finley’s subsequent bipolar disorder, Williams Rep. at * 19

– 20, but without evidence of a direct link between SPC Finley’s death and Mr. Finley’s diagnosis, the Court declines to provide an enhancement on that basis.27 * * * In sum, the Court adopt ed the recommendations of the special masters subject to the deviations listed above.
VI. 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 used the same methodology with these plaintiffs

. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, t he Court largely adopt ed the special masters ’ recommendations for compensatory damages to each plaintiff listed in the Tranche 1 Order, with the handful of modifications noted herein, and awarded prejudgment interest to each plaintiff as reflected in the Tranche 1 Order

.

/s/ John D. Bates United States District Judge Dated: June 28, 2024