UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ESTATE OF JUDAH HERZEL HENKIN, 

### etal
., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1: 18-cv-1273-RCL THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, 

### et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. LIABILITY This civil action arises from a brutal attack in Israel on October 1, 2015 involving Hamas terrorists who savagely murdered Eitam and Naama Henkin in front oftheir four minor children. Filed onMay 31, 2018, the Complaint was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A by the parents and siblings ofEitamHenkin, seeking solatium and economic damages. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs served defendants Islamic Republic ofIran ("Iran") and the Syrian Arab Republic ("Syria") through diplomatic channels on December 19, 2018, and January 22, 2019, respectively. ECF Nos. 14 and 15. Following defendants' failure to respond, and upon affidavit byplaintiffs' counsel, the Clerk ofCourt entered a default as to both defendants on May 6, 2019. ECF Nos. 17 and 18. OnAugust 27, 2020, plaintiffs filed for defaultjudgment, asking this Court to: (1) "make independent findings offact and conclusions oflaw that [Hamas] is responsible for the terrorist attack which killed Eitam Henkin"; (2) "takejudicial notice ofpriorjudgments and adopt the findings offact and conclusions oflaw entered inthe related cases" whichhave issued

- 1

-judgments against Iran and Syria for materially supporting Hamas in carrying out terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens; (3) "makeindependent findings offact and conclusions oflawthat Iranprovided material support and sponsorship to [Hamas] during the relevant time period"; (4) "makeindependent findings offact and conclusions oflaw" that "Syria also provided independent material support to [Hamas] which furthered the terror attack at issue"; (5) "enter Default Judgment against the Defendants, and each ofthem, both Iran and Syria as to liability on behalfofall Plaintiffs pursuant to the private cause ofaction found in28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)"; and (6) "find that the Plaintiffs suffered economic loss and damages and make compensatory and punitive damages awards commensurate with the damages evidencepresented." Mem. in Supp. ofMot. for Default J., ECF No. 21-1 at 1-2; Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 21. Following an evidentiaryhearing convened on January 12 and 14, 2021, the Court, on July 12, 2021, issued a Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw, ECF No. 29, a Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 30, and a Finding ofLiability, ECF No. 31. OnJuly 27, 2021, plaintiffs moved to appoint a special master. ECF No. 33. This Court grantedplaintiffs' motion on August 4, 2021, appointing Alan Balaran to serve as Special Master. ECF No. 34. OnMarch 31, 2023, the Special Master filed his report and recommendation withthe Court. ECF No 49. The parties havenot 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 ormodify-themaster's order, report, orrecommendations no later than 21 days after a copy is served"). Having established liability, this Court examines the Special Master's recommended awards.

- 2 -

### II. DAMAGES 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, "adefault winner mustprove damages 'inthe same manner and to the same extent' as any other default winner." Hillv. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680, 683-84 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quotingAlameda v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 622 F.2d 1044, 1048 (1st Cir. 1980)). See also H.R. 

### REP. No. 94-1487, at 26 (1976) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) establishes "the
samerequirement applicable to defaultjudgments against the U.S. Governmentunderrule 55(e), F[ed]. R. Civ. P."). Forfuture damages, a plaintiffmust demonstrate entitlement to a "reasonable certainty or a preponderance ofthe evidence," and prove damagesby a "reasonable estimate." Hill, 328 F.3d at 684. Forpast losses, a plaintiff"provethe fact of injury with reasonable certainty" yet only "reasonablyprove" the amount ofdamages. Id. at 684 (quoting Samaritan Inns, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 114 F.3d 1227, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 1997)) (emphasis added).Plaintiffs have amply demonstrated that defendants' commission ofacts ofextrajudicial killing andprovision ofmaterial support and resources for such killing was reasonably certainto -and, indeed, intended to-injureplaintiffs. See Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 37 (D.D.C. 2007). Apropos ofdamage awards, the Courthas received and reviewed therecommendations of the Special Master and 

### ADOPTS, without discussion, all facts found and recommendations made that conform to the well-established damages frameworks articulated below. See id. at 51- 53; Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 83-87 (D.D.C. 2010). The Court

- 3

-will, however, discuss the two instances where the Special Masterhas recommended that awards be denied. Additionally, though the Special Master's report did provide a recommendation on a punitive damages award, the Court will discuss why such an award is appropriate here. 

### A. Solatium Solatium damages are designed "to compensate persons for mental anguish, bereavement and griefthat those with a close personal relationship to a decedent experience as well as the harm causedbythe loss ofthe 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 

### Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, this Court surveyed damages awarded to the family members ofthe deceased terrorism victims and determined that, based on averages, that "[s]pouses typically receive greater damage awards than parents [orchildren], who, intum, typicallyreceive greater awards than siblings." 466 F. Supp. 2d 229,269 (D.D.C. 2006). This Court then established a framework whereby spouses ofdeceased victims receive approximately $8 million, parents receive $5 million, and siblings receive $2.5 million. 

### Id. See also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85 (observingthat courts have "adopted the framework set forth in

### Heiser as 'an appropriate measure ofdamages for the family members ofvictims"') (quoting 

### Peterson, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 51). 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 inthe face of"evidence establishing an especially close relationship between the plaintiffand decedent, particularly in comparison to the normal

- 4 -interactions to be expected given the familial relationship" or with "medical proofofsevere pain, griefor suffering on behalfofthe claimant" orifthe "circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack [rendered] the suffering particularlymore acute or agonizing." Oveissi, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 26-27. Conversely, downward departures maybe appropriate where the evidence suggests that the relationship betweenthe victim and his family members is attenuated, Va/ore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 86, or where a claimant fails to "prove damages inthe same manner and to the same extent as any other default winner." Hill, 328 F.3d at 683 (internal quotationmarks and citation omitted). The Special Master's awards for loss ofsolatium adhere to the Heiser guidelines and are grounded in sound evidentiaryprinciples. See Special MasterRep., ECF No. 49, at 28-32. Those recommendations will not be disturbed. B. Economic Damages In addition to seekingredress for the emotional trauma sufferedbecause ofEitam's murder, his brothers Jacob and Joseph Henkin seek awards to compensate them for their financial losses. Jacob Henkin claims his brother's death "significantly impacted" his career as a network administrator
. Hemaintains that, after Eitam's death, hehad to assume responsibility for his ailing father's care and spend time transporting Eitam and Naama's children between grandparents, resulting in a diminution ofhis work hours which adversely affected his "future career." Jacob Henkin Deel. 

## ,r,r 10, 16. Joseph Henkin contends that Eitam's death had affected his ability to concentrate and work at thepacehe once did, resulting inhis inability to have his book on Rhodesiapublished by a distinguished academic press. Joseph Henkin Deel. 

## ,r 16. He



### - 5

-predicts his diminished work capacity will result inhis being denied tenure at an Israeli university. Id. 

## ,r 17. Each brother submitted an economicreport projecting their past and future financial losses supporting theirrespective claims. See (Jacob Henkin Econ. Rep.; Joseph Henkin Econ. Rep.). The Special Master, finding no fault with the methodology employed in those reports, nonetheless recommended both claims berejected. Special Master Rep. at 33-37. He did so after finding Jacob's representations unsupported bythe record and Joseph's claim too speculative to support a monetary award. Id. The Court agrees. 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1605A, like its statutorypredecessor 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1605(a)(7), establishes a
cause ofaction for economic damages resulting from an act ofstate-sponsoredterrorism. To help formulate economic losses, "[t]hereport ofa forensic economist mayprovide areasonable basis for determining the amount ofeconomic damages." Reedv. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F. Supp. 2d 204,214 (D.D.C. 2012). Before recommending the adoption ofa forensic analysis, the Special Master must first examinethe methodological soundness ofthe calculations, mindful that "mathematical exactitude is often impossible,"Bova v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 15-cv1074 (RCL), 2020 WL 2838582, at *11 (D.D.C. May 31, 2020), and then examine "the reasonableness and foundation ofthe assumptions relied upon bythe expert," Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 402, to safeguard against "speculation, contingency, or conjecture." Bova, 2020 WL 2838582, at *11. The need for scrutinybecomes enhanced for those claims implicating "[

d]epartures from actual pre-injury earnings," as they "mustbejustified and cannot beunduly speculative." And/erv. Clear ChannelBroad., Inc., 670 F.3d 717, 727 (6th Cir. 2012).

- 6 -The Court finds that the Special Master carefully scrutinized the record before issuing his findings. Afterundertaking its ownreview, the Court finds that Jacob Henkin's claim that Eitam's death caused him to devote work time to the care ofhis father to the detriment ofhis
career is unsupported, ifnotrefuted, bythe testimony ofhis mother and siblings. Similarly, Jacob's attempt to forge a link betweenhis stated "extraordinary grief, tremendous fear, mental anguish, emotional distress and general physical and mental weakness," Special Master Rep. at 17, and his bleak careerprospects is grounded not in evidence, but in conjecture and supposition. SeeAbedini v. Gov't of IslamicRepublic of Iran, 422 F. Supp. 3d 118, 139 (D.D.C. 2019) (awarding lost wages to plaintiffwho was medically diagnosed withpost-traumatic stress disorder and clinical depression because ofherbrother's imprisonment). Joseph Henkin's attempt to demonstrate a nexus betweenhis brother's death and his "slowed" "pace ofwork" and failure to have his treatise published in a timely fashion is factually undermined bythe letterhereceived from Cambridge University Press-aletter that, for all intents and purposes, constituted an indictment ofhis scholarship. Special Master Rep. at 18, 36. Legally, it is too speculative to support an award. See Rezaian v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 422 F. Supp. 3d 164, 182 (D.D.C. 2019) ("Attributing a specific dollar amount to a book deal that
neverprogressedpast discussions is far too speculativeto pass muster in a lost earnings calculation.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Joseph's request to be compensated for losing
a tenured positionhe was not offered suffers the same infirmity as it assumes facts not in evidence and anticipates events that may ormay not occur. The only evidence supporting the claims ofJacob and Joseph Henkin is their declarations. That a forensic expert took their statements at face value and imputed the

- 7 -

### information into a statistical algorithm using leading economic indicators, without more, cannot ground a claim for economic losses. The Special Master correctly denied both claims. C. Punitive Damages 

### Finally, the Special Masterrecommended the award ofpunitive damages. Punitive damages serve to punish and deter the actions for which they are awarded, rather than to compensatethe victim. In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d at 31, 61 (D.D.C. 2009). In determining the proper punitive damages award, courts evaluate four factors: "(1) the character ofthe defendants' act, (2) the nature and extent ofharm 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.IslamicRepublic of Iran, 574 F
. Supp. 2d 15, 30 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Restatement (Second) ofTorts § 

### 908)). Though there was some confusion among circuits as to whetherpunitivedamages were availablein 28 U.S
.C. § 1065A actions for conductoccurringprior to the statute's enactment, such as the instant case, the Supreme Court recently answered the question in the affirmative. See Opati v. Republic ofSudan, 140 S. Ct. 1601, 1608 (2020) ("Congresswas as clear as itcouldhavebeenwhenitexpressly authorizedpunitivedamages under § 1605A(c) and explicitly made that new cause ofaction available to remedy certain past acts of terrorism."). This Districthas developedthreeprimarymethods ofcalculatingpunitivedamages inFSIA
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

- 8 -

### family. See Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53, 75 (D.D.C. 2008). The third approach involves multiplying the total compensatory damages award by a factor ofbetween 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 I, 26 (D.D.C. 2016)). The nature ofdefendants' acts is heinous and the extent ofthe harm they caused is tragic. Defendants intentionally supported a proxy actor who specifically sought to wreak violence upon innocent civilians. 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 ofthree" ofthe compensatory damages is "theusual practice in state sponsored terrorism cases," seeRoth 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 areason 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 ofthe 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,

- 9 -50-51 (D.D.C. 2012) (using athreetimesmultiplierin acaseinvolving aterroristbombing);Bland
v. IslamicRepublic of Iran, 831 F. Supp. 2d 150, 158 (D.D.C. 2011) (same);Murphy, 740 F. Supp. · 2d at 82-83 (same). III. CONCLUSION This Court acknowledges plaintiffs' efforts to hold Iran and Syriaresponsible for this particularlyrepugnant act ofterror. The Court concludes that defendants must bepunished to the fullest extent legallypossible for the murders ofEitam and Naama Henkin on October 1, 2015-
a depraved act that destroyed the lives ofthe parties to this lawsuit. This Court hopes that the victims and their families may find somemeasure ofsolace from this Court's finaljudgment. The Court finds defendants responsible for the injuries sustained bythe plaintiffs and thus liable underthe FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism exception for $22,500,000.00 in compensatory damages and $67,500,000.00 inpunitive damages, for a total award of $90,000,000.00. A separate Order and Judgment consistent with these findings shall be entered this date. SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 

### f'.14- day ofMay, 2023. Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge

- 10 -