UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN RELVAS, et al., Plaintiffs,

V. THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et a!.,
Defendants. Case No.: l:14-cv-01752-RCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. LIABILITY This civil action was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A and arises out ofthe bombing ofthe United States Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon on October 23,1983. Foleyv. Islamic Republic ofIran^'^o. 14-CV-01752-RCL (D.D.C. 2014). EOF No. 1 (Complaint). The nearly 80 plaintiffs inthis action include servicemen killed orinjured inthe terrorist attack, their estates, and family members. Defendants were served through diplomatic channels onMay 17, 

### 2016. ECF No. 38. Prompted by defendants' failure to answer, and upon affidavit by plaintiffs' counsel, the clerk ofcourt entered a default against defendants on July 21, 2016. ECF Nos. 39 

### and 40. On July 27, 2016, plaintiffs' counsel filed amotion for defaultjudgment, asking this Court "to takenotice of the liability decisions entered in the relatedcases of Peterson v. Islamic 

### Republic of Iran {Peterson 7), 264 F.Supp.2d. 46 (D.D.C. 2003) and Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 856 F.Supp.2d 109 (D.D.C. 2012)." ECF No. 41. That same day, plaintiffs' counsel moved for the appointment ofa special master. ECF No. 42. This Court granted both motions

on October 25, 2016. ECF No. 45.II. DAMAGES Damages available under the FSIA-created cause ofaction "include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages." 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Survivors may
recover damages for their pain and suffering; estatesof the deceased may recover economic losses stemming from wrongful death to the victims ofterrorism; family membersmay recover solatium for their emotional injury; andallplaintiffs may recover punitive damages. Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.Supp.2d 52, 82-83 (D.D.C. 2010). Under theFSIA, a "default winner mustprove damages in the same manner andto the
same extent as anyotherdefaultwinner." Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680,683 (D.C. Cir. 2003). A plaintiff"must provethat the consequences of the defendants' conduct were 'reasonably certain (i.e., more likely than not) to occur, and must prove the amount ofthe damages by areasonable estimate consistent with this [Circuit's] application ofthe American rule on damages.'" Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F.Supp.2d 105,115-16 (D.D.C. 2005) (quoting Hill, 328 F.3d at 681 (internal quotations omitted)). Plaintiffs inthis action have 

### amply demonstrated that defendants' commission ofacts ofextrajudicial killing and provision of material support and resources for such killing were reasonably certain to- and indeed intended 

### to
- cause injury to plaintiffs. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran {Peterson 77), 515 F.Supp.2d 25, 37 (D.D.C. 2007). Apropos ofdamage awards, the Court has received andreviewed therecommendations of 

### the special master and hereby ADOPTS, without discussion, all facts found by and recommendations made by the special master which conform to the well-established damages 

### frameworks articulated below. See Peterson II, at 52-53; Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 84-87. TheCourt will, however, discuss those instances where the special masterhas recommended awards
that deviate from these frameworks.
A. Pain and Suffering Assessing appropriate damages for physical injury or mental disability depends upon a myriad offactors. Where"death was instantaneous there can be no recovery " Elahi v. IslamicRepublic of Iran, 124 F.Supp.2d 97,112 (D.D.C. 2000) (citation omitted). See also Thuneibat v. Syrian ArabRepublic, 167 F.Supp.3d 22,39 n.4 (D.D.C. 2016) (where plaintiffs "submit[] no evidence
... showing thateither of the [vjictims suffered any painand suffering prior to their deaths in the suicide bombings," damages must be denied). Victims who survived a few minutes to a few hours afterthebombing typically receive an award of$1 million. Elahi, 124 F.Supp.2d at 113. For victims surviving for a longer period oftime, this Court considers "the severity ofthe pain immediately following the injury, the length ofhospitalization, andthe extent ofthe impairment that will remain with the victim for the rest ofhis orher life." Peterson //, 515 F.Supp.2d at52 n. 26 (citing Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.Supp.2d 40, 59 (D.D.C. 2006)). In Peterson II, this Court adopted ageneral procedure for the calculation of damages 

### that begins with the baseline assumption that persons suffering substantial injuries in terrorist 

### attacks are entitled to $5 million in compensatory damages. Id. at 54. This approach is not rigidly applied, however, and this Court has indicated itwill "depart upward from this baseline to 

### $7—$12 million in more severe instances of physical and psychological pain, such as where 

### victims suffered relatively more numerous and severe injuries, were rendered quadriplegic, partially lost vision and hearing, or were mistaken for dead," Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 84, and

-3-will "depart downward to $2-$3 million where victims suffered only minor shrapnel injuries or minorinjuryfrom small-arms fire." O'Brien v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 853 F.Supp.2d44,47 (D.D.C. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For servicemen suffering emotional, but no physical injury, this Court has adopted a general framework for the calculation ofpain and suffering damages whereby they are "typically awarded $1.5 million." Worley v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 177 F.3d 283,286 (D.D.C. 2016). See alsoDavis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 882 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2012) (awarding $1.5 million in damages to Marine stationed aboard USS Iwo Jimaat time ofattack butparticipated in recovery efforts andsuffered from PTSD). See alsoPeterson, 515 F.Supp.2d at 56; Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 84. The following represent instances where the special master'srecommended awards for painandsuffering damages do not comport withthe frameworks articulated above.
1. Upward Departures a) Mark Boyd The special master recommended that Mark Boyd receive anenhancement of$500,000 to 

### the $1.5 million typically awarded to victims who "suffer[ed] severe emotional injury without physical injury." Kaplan v. Hezbollah, 213 F.Supp.3d 27,36 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Harrison v. 

### Republic of Sudan, 882 F.Supp.2d 23,49 (D.D.C. 2012)). Mr. Boyd's testimony revealed he was 

### assigned the particularly gruesome task of locating the body parts of those killed by the blast and placing severed heads, arms, legs, and torsos of his fellow servicemen into body bags. In recommending an enhancement, the special master reasoned that, unlike many servicemen whose claims of PTSD are either self-diagnosed or evaluated only after the initiation

-4-

### ofalawsuit, Mr. Boyd's records reflect no fewer than 33 attempts on his partto seekpsychiatric intervention. Further, medical records corroborate Mr. Boyd suffering from agalaxy ofailments 

### in addition to PTSD, including debilitating "mood disturbances such as depression, anxiety, feelings ofanger; chronic sleep disturbances; difficulty with social interaction; lack of concentration; and increasing social isolation resulting in severe, but less than total, social and 

### occupational impairment." The $1.5 million baseline established by this Court recognizes that 

## all survivors ofthe Beirut massacre are presumed to suffer "lasting and severe psychological problems from the attack." Estate of Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 943 F.Supp.2d 180,188 (D.D.C. 2013). An enhancement is warranted where asurvivorpresents with aprofound set of documented ailments resulting from their experience. The Court agrees that such an enhancement is appropriate in this instance and ADOPTS the special master's recommendation that Mark Boyd be awarded $2 million for pain and suffering. (b) John Ijames 

### The special masterrecommended thatJohn Ijames be awarded $2 million for pain and 

## suffering

- reflecting an enhancement of$500,000 from the baseline awardestablished by this Court. Mr. Ijames was involved inthe nansport ofdead servicemen from land to the USS Iwo 

### Jimaand was assigned the horrific task ofhandling the bodies ofservicemen who were burned and disfigured beyond recognition. 

### The special masterbased his recommendation not only on Mr. Ijames' detailed 

## description ofhis service-relatedtraumas but on medical records indicating Mr. Ijames suffers from service-related "PTSD, bipolar, depression severe withoutpsychosis, insomniarelated to mental, alcohol dependence," "borderline schizophrenia," and "intense and intrusive memories

5-

### ofhis time in the service, frequent panic attacks (with tachycardia, profound anxiety and sweats), 

### nightmares, insomnia, uncontrollable tears, over-reactive startle, and episodes ofextreme anger with violent outbursts." On this record, the Court agrees that Mr. Ijames' ailments go well 

### beyond the normal range ofpost-traumatic stress disorders which generally informthe baseline award set out in Worley and ADOPTS the special master's recommendation that Mr. Ijames be awarded $2 million in damages for pain and suffering. (c) Gregory Simmons 

### The special master recommended that Gregory Simmons receive an enhancement of $500,000 in compensation for his service-related pain and suffering. Gregory Simmons was 

### among those involved in the recovery effort immediately following the October 23 bombing. His testimony recounts the week he spent uncovering bodies with "missing limbs, chunks of flesh, decapitated, just dead." He recalls working in one area which "smelled ofblood, alot of blood mixed with explosives that youjustcan't describe it, but you won't forget it." His contemporaneous letters tohis family recount finding fellow servicemen "decapitated [n]o arms, no legs, no faces," and describe one incident when he "picked up abody and the skin peeled off in [his] hands." Mr. Simmons' medical records are equally detailed in theirdescription of the constellation of maladies Mr. Simmons suffered, and continues to suffer, as a direct result of his experiences in Beirut. Records supplied from theVAindicate he is afflicted with"bipolar II disorder andPTSD, chronic," for whichhe has beenprescribed several psychotropic medications, andas being "hypervigilant, quickto anger, isolates himselffor daysat a time, has nightmares, difficulty sleeping and has difficulty in crowds." On this record, the Court ADOPTSthe special master's recommendation that Mr. Simmons be awarded $2 millionin damages for pain and suffering.
2. Downward Departures a) Al Duncan The special master recommended that Al Duncan receive $750,000 - an award representing halfof the $1.5 million baseline established in Worley. Mr. Duncan, although present at Beirut atthe timeof thebombing, was a member of an amphibious unitstationed at an "impact zone," - an "area where we witnessed the actual rubble ofthe barracks and the first responders thatwere working there, the overturned vehicles, just the levels of thebarracks that collapsed." And although forced to view the "vehicles, trucks still overturned, not cleaned up as ofyet," aswell as "remnants ofUnited States flags and furniture, personal effects," Mr. Duncan neither engaged in the rescue operation nor endured the trauma ofsearching for survivors or collecting the remains ofthe blast's victims. He attributes his alleged trauma, instead, tothe overall "destruction"; to having been on "high alert"; to being exposed to the "smell ofa strong odor ofexplosives"; and to being under sniper fire for seven days ina skirmish unrelated tothe terrorist attack. And although Mr. Duncan was diagnosed with PTSD, his diagnosis was made in 

### 2013

- after he had been employed for years as an employee of the New York City Department 

### ofCorrections; after serving as amember of the Emergency Services Unit which responded to Ground Zero in Manhattan on 9/11; and after spending "the next approximately four and ahalfto 

### five months rotating from Ground Zero to Fresh Kills Landfill." The presumption articulated in Dob

— that survivors ofthe Beirut bombing suffer emotional trauma

— does notrelieve claimants from demonstrating anexus between the terror attack and their claimed damages. This Court

7-agrees withthe special masterthat Mr. Duncan has not demonstrated such a nexus andADOPTS the recommendation thatMr. Duncan be awarded $750,000 in damages for painand suffering, b) Ross Morrison The special master recommended that Ross Morrison receive a reduced award of $750,000. The special master's recommendation was based ontestimony thatMr. Morrison was notpart ofthe search andrescue effort; thathe only viewed the aftermath of thebombing from a distance; andthatthe wound he received was the resultof a "secondary attack" unrelated to the bombing. Mr. Morrison does notdescribe suffering from anyof the array ofsymptoms or traumas which have plagued similarly-situated servicemen nor did he, at anytime, seek medical assistance. The Court agrees with the special master's findings andADOPTS the special master's recommendation that Ross Morrison be awarded $750,000 in compensatory damages for pain and suffering.
B. Economic Loss The estates ofthose servicemen killed inthe terrorist attack have proven to the satisfaction of the specialmaster, and thus to the satisfaction ofthis Court, the loss of accretions resulting from these wrongful deaths. Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 85. The Court therefore ADOPTS, without modification, the special master's recommended damage awards for
economic loss.
C. Solatium This Court developed a standardized approach for FSIA intentional infliction of emotional distress, or solatium, claims in Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp.2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006). InHeiser, this Court surveyed damages awarded to the family members ofthedeceased victims ofterrorism and determined, based onaverages, that "[s]pouses typically receive greater damage awards than parents [orchildren], who, in turn, typically receive greater awards than siblings." Id. at 269. Specifically, this Court established a framework whereby spouses ofdeceased victims receive approximately $8 million, while parents receive $5 million and siblings receive $2.5 million. Id. See also Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 85 (observing that courts have "adopted theframework setforth in Heiser as 'an appropriate measure ofdamages for thefamily members of victims'") (quoting Peterson //, 515 F.Supp.2d at 51). When applying this framework, this Court is mindful that "[tjhese numbers ...are notset instone," Murphy v. Islamic Republic ofIran, 740 F.Supp.2d 51,79 (D.D.C. 2010), and that deviations may be warranted when confronted with "evidence establishing anespecially close relationship between the plaintiffand decedent, particularly in comparison to the normal interactions to be expected given the familial relationship" orwith "medical proofofsevere pain, grieforsuffering onbehalfof theclaimant and circumstances surrounding theterrorist attack [rendered] the suffering particularly more acute oragonizing." Oveissi vIslamic Republic of Iran, 768 F.Supp.2d 16,26-27 (D.D.C. 2011). Conversely, downward departures may be appropriate where the evidence suggests that the relationship between the victim and his family 

### members is attenuated, Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 86, or where aclaimant fails to "prove damages inthe same manner and to the same extent as any other default winner." Hill, 328 F.3d at 683. The following represents instances where the special master's recommended awards for loss ofsolatium deviate from the Heiser framework.
1. Upward Departures a) William Faulk

9-

### The special masterrecommended that William Faulk, whose brotherJames Faulkwas 

## kdled on October23,1983, receive asolatiumawardinthe amount of$3 million

- reflecting a $500,000 enhancementfrom the baseline established inHeiser. The special masterfound evidence ofan "especially close relationship, particularly in comparisonto the normal 

## interactions to beexpected giventhe familial relationship," Oveissi, 768 F.Supp.2d at27, compelling such an enhancement. Aside from being close in age, the testimony revealedthat William was asurrogate father forJames during theirparents' prolonged absences, thatthe 

## brothers were placed m the foster systemtogether, workedforthe same employer, engaged in activities together, did homeworktogetherand generally enjoyed a relationship more intimate than that shared by most siblings. The Court agrees with the special master's recommendation 

## that William Faulkbe awarded $3 million in compensatory damages for loss ofsolatium.
2. Downward Departures a) Estate of Kenneth Coleman 

### The special masterrecommended that Kenneth Coleman, whose brotherMarcus Coleman 

### was killed m Beirut, receive $500,000 less than the presumptive $2.5 million baseline award 

## establishedinHeiser. Kennethdiedpriorto the filing ofthis action. The special masterbased his recommendation onthepaucity ofevidence describing the relationship between the brothers. 

## Kenneth's sister, Marsha, testified only thatKenneth mayhave hostedMarcus' high school graduationparty. His brother, Michael, assumed, forreasons not stated inthe record, that Kenneth's alcohol abuse and inabilityto maintain steady employmentwas the resultofMarcus' death. No otherfamily memberoffered any glimpse into the relationship betweenthetwo brothers. The Courtagrees that Kenneth failed to "prove damages in the same mannerand to

10-

### the same extent as any other default winner "Hill, 328 F.3d at 683, and therefore ADOPTS the special master srecommendation that the Estate ofKenneth Coleman be awarded $2 million in compensatory damages for loss ofsolatium. D. Punitive Damages 

### In assessing punitive damages, this Court has observed that any award mustbalance the 

### concern that "Recurrent awards in case after case arising out ofthe same facts can financially cripple adefendant, over-punishing the same conduct through repeated awards with little deterrent effect...," Murphy, 740 F.Supp.2d at 75, againstthe need to continue to deter "the 

### brutal actions ofdefendants in planning, supporting and aiding the execution of[terrorist attacks]." Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F.Supp.2d 163,184 (D.D.C. 2010). In 

## furtherance ofthis goal, this Courtheld thatthe calculation ofpunitive damages in subsequent related actions should be tied directly to the ratio ofpunitive to compensatory damages setforth in earlier cases. Murphy, 740 F.Supp.2d at 76. The ratio of$3.44 was established in Valore

- an 

## earlierFSIA case arising out ofthe Beirutbombing. Id. at 82-83 (citing Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 52). The Courtwill again apply this same $3.44 ratio, resulting in a total punitive damages award of$955,652,324.
CONCLUSION 

## This Courtappreciates the efforts byplaintiffs to hold Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence accountable for their support ofterrorism. The Court concludes that defendants must 

## bepunishedto the fullest extentlegally possible forthe bombing in Beirut on October23,1983

- 

## a

depraved actthatdevastated the lives ofcountless individuals andtheirfamilies, including the nearly 80 plaintiffs who are parties to this lawsuit. This Court hopes that the victims and their

-IN

## families may find some measure ofsolace from this Court's finaljudgment. As stated, the Court finds defendants responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs and thus liable under the 

## FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism exception for $207,222,647.03 in compensatory damages and $712,845,905.78 in punitive damages, for atotal award of$920,068,552.81 Aseparate Order and Judgment consistent with these findings shall be entered this date.
SO ORDERED.

DATE:

-12- c. Royce C. Lamberth United States District Court for the District of Columbia