UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

____________________________________ ) L AWRENCE BEL KI

N, )

) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 06 -07 11 (P L F) ) I SL AMI C REP UB L I C OF I RAN, e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . ) ____________________________________)

OPI NI ON, F I NDI NGS OF F ACT, AND CONCLUSI ONS OF LAW This matter is befor e the Court on plaintiff L awr ence Be lkin’s motion, individually

and as ne x t of kin of Gail B elkin, for de fault judg ment under Rule 55 of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil P roce dure, ba sed on the swor n aff idavits, ex hibits, and other evidenc e submitted to the Court in support of the entry of a de fault judg ment. This case arises f rom the 1996 killing of plaintiff’s w ife in I srae l as the re sult of a suicide bombingalleg edly sponsored by

the defe ndants and c arr ied out by the Palestinian I slamic J ihad.
I . PRO CED UR

AL HI STO RY 1. On April 20, 2006, plaintiff filed his c omplaint in thi s Court seeking , among other thing s, compensation for his emotional distress and ec onomic loss due to the wrong ful death of his wife, Ga il Belkin. 2. In acc ordanc e with the re levant provision of the F oreig n Sovereig n I mmuniti es Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a) , and 22 C.F.R. § 93.2, plaintiff c aused the complaint, summons and Notice of Suit, along with translations of e ach, to be serve d on eac h defe ndant, namely theB e c a us e the re wa s n o s e rv ic e on the I RG C, t

he y wi ll b e dis mis se d f

ro m th is 1 action. 2 I slamic Republic of Iran ( “Iran” ), Iran’ s Minist ry of Information and Sec urity (“MOI S”), and the I slamic Revolutionary

Guar d Corp of Iran ( “I RGC”). 3. Service of proc ess was initially attempted on ea ch def

endant in Te hran, I

ran via DHL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)( 3) on Jul y 6, 2006 and on August 18, 2006. The DHL packa g es we re r efuse d on August 26, 2006, and the re turn rec eipt was re turned une x ecute d on August 28, 2006. Docket No. 5.

4. At plaintiff’s re quest, the summonses wer e re issued on November 1, 2006, and on Dec ember

12, 2006 only

as to Iran a

nd MOI S, where upon the Clerk of the Court was reque sted to assist with service of proce ss under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a) (4). Doc ket No. 8. 5. Se rv ic e of

pr oc e ss w a s f

ur the r a tte mpt e d v ia

dip lom a tic c ha

nn e ls p ur su ant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4) on Iran a nd MOI S. On Dece mber 11, 2006, plaintiff ma de a r equest to the Clerk of the Court by

letter. The Clerk of the Court tra nsmitt ed the se rvice documents to the State Depa

rtment on J anuar

y 25, 2007. Docke t No. 9. The doc uments were transmitted to I ran’ s Ministry of F oreig n Affa irs via the Embassy of Switz erla

nd on April 22, 2007 under c over of diplomatic notes, numbers 1069-I E and 1070-I E. The Irania n Ministry

of F oreig n Affa irs returne d the documents a fter be ing se rved, but ser vice wa s eff

ective a s of April 22, 2007 under 28 U. S.C. § 1 60 8( c )( 1) . D oc ke t N o. 10 ; see also Plaintiff’s Ex hibit 1. 1

6
. D e f e n d an t s ’ an s w e r

w a s d u e o nJ un e 2 1 , 2 0 0 7
. D e f e n d an t s Ir anan d

M O IS failed to e nter a

ny appea ranc e and f

ailed to re spond by

that date. To date, no re sponses have be e n ma de by

e ith e r d e fe nd ant.The Ame nded Complaint deleted the pr eviously made c laims for dama g es under 2 the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia ’s Sur

viv a l A c t and

fo r l os s o f c on so rt ium . Co un ts I and I Iof the F ir st Amended Complaint cha

rg e the de fenda

nts with wrong ful death, Count I under D istrict of Columbi a law a

nd Count I Iunder f

eder al common law. Count I I Ichar g es loss of solatium under fede ral c ommon law. Count I V and Count I V-A c harg e the intentional infliction of emotional distress, Count I V under

District of Columbia law and Count I V-A unde r fe dera l common law. Counts V through IX cha rg e wr ong ful death, ag g ravated assault, violations of human dig nity , and vio latio ns of

int e rn atio na l tr e aty

ob lig a tio ns un de r t

he laws of

I sr a e l. C ount Xc ha

rg e s d e fe nd ants with violation of customary international law(

jus cogens ). 3 7. On July 2, 20 07 , p la int if

f r e qu e ste d th e Cle rk

of thi s Co ur t to e nte r a

de fa ult , which wa s entere d by

the Clerk on Jul y

6, 2007. Docke t No. 12. On J uly 27, 2007, plaintiff
mov e d f or de fa ult jud g me nt. Do c ke t N o. 14 . O n D e c e mbe r 7 , 2 00 7, pla int if f m a de his evidentiar y submissi on consisting of aff idavits, videotapes, and doc uments to the Court. Pl aintiff submitt ed propose d finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law.

8. On Marc h 2 8, 20 08 , p ri or

to t he Court ru lin g on pla int if f’ s mo tio n f

or de fa ult judgme nt, plaintiff moved for le ave to f ile a F irst Amended Complaint under the a uthority of Section 1083 of the National Defe nse Authorization Act for F iscal Ye ar 2008 ( “NDA A”) , Pub. L . 110-181, which w as sig ned by the President and e nacte d into law on J anuar y 28, 2008. The First Amende d Complaint was lodge d with the motion.

9. The Court g rante d leave to file the F irst Amended Complaint on J une 17, 2008. The Ame nded Complaint added thre e additional ca uses of a ction under f

eder al common law. The y

are Wrongf

ul Death ( Count I I ), Solatium (Count I I I ), and I ntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count I V-A)
. 2

10 . Pl a int if

f c on tin ue s to re ly

on his pr e vio us ly

fi le d e vid e nti ary

su bmi ssi on in
su pp or t of his re ne we d mo tio n f

or de fa ult jud g me nt ( Do c ke t N o. 20 ) o n th e Am e nd e d Co mpl a int
. On a motion for de fault judg ment broug ht ag ainst a for eig n sovere ign or its ag encie s or4

instrumentalities, the claimant must establish his claim or rig ht to relief by evidenc e satisfa ctory to the court. See28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). The evidentiar y submissi on was filed on D ece mber 7, 2007, and a c ourtesy

copy delivere d to Chambers. The Court f inds that these evidentiar

y
su bmi ssi on s are su ff

ic ie nt t o e sta

bli shpla int if

f’ s c la ims
. I I . F I ND I NG S OF F AC T 1. Pla int if

f L awr e nc e B e lki n is a

Un ite d St a te s c iti zen , b or n a nd ra ise d in Pennsylvania. Af

ter g raduating f

rom the Univer sity

of Michig an in 1969, he se rved thre e y ear s in t he Un ite d St ate s A rmy

and the n f our m or e y e ars in t

he Ar my Re se rv e . A ft e r h is a c tiv e duty dis c ha rg e , h e atte nd e d g ra du ate sc ho ol i n N or th C aro lin a

wh e re he re c e ive d M a ste rs De g re e s in bo th Arc hit e c tur e and

Re g ion a l Pla

nn ing . H e wo rk e d in

No rt h Ca ro lin a fr om 1 97 3 unti l mid-1981 when he moved to I srae l and opene d his own arc hitectura l desig n firm. Plaintiff’s Ex hibit 2 ¶¶ 1-5 (“ Be lkin Declar ation”).

2. When Mr. Be lkin moved from North Car olina to I srae l in 1981, he no longe r maintained any

residenc es or substantial conta cts with any particula r state in the United States. At the tim e he c on sid e re d I sr a e l to be his pe rm ane nt r e sid e nc e . H e did ma int a in g e ne ra l c on ta c ts with the United States g overnme nt, including by filing his United States income tax returns eac h y ear while he r esided in I srae l. Be lkin Declar ation ¶ 6.

3. Mr. B elkin marrie d Gail B elkin on Marc h 23, 1995. Gail B elkin had bee n born in Rhodesia and also lived in South Africa befor e she immig rate d to I srae l. Eng lish was her native languag e. B y

profe ssion, she was a c osmetician and r an a suc cessf ul business. She beca me a c itiz en and r esident of I srae l. At the time of her de ath, she wa s 48 y ear s of ag e and ha dD r . P atr i c k C l aw s o nh a s p r o v i d e d

s w o r ne xp e rtt e s t i m o n y

c o n c e r n i n g th e P I J, 3 Iran, MOI S and the I RGC in numerous case s befor e this Court. I n He ise r v. Islamic Re public of Iran, Dr. Clawson is desc ribed a s a “r enowne d scholar of Middle Eastern politics, who ha s studied and written a

bout I ran f

or y ear s. In over 20 c ases, Dr . Clawson has provided this Court

5 two adult daug hters fr om a pre vious marriag e. B elkin Dec laration ¶ 10.

4. At the time of his marria g e to Gail B elkin, Mr. B elkin was a widower with two children. H is first wife died sudde nly six y ear s ear lier in I srae l when her car collided with a truck. As a

result of the loss of his first wife , the evidenc e submitted supports the fac tual
asser tion that Mr. Be lkin felt compelled to be the best husband he c ould be to his new wife , and he wa s very

close to her . He made it a point to tell her ever y day how much he love d her, a nd often told her how

he dre aded the thought of losing he r throug h death a s he did his first wife. Gail B elkin was to be his compa nion for the r est of his life. B elkin Dec laration ¶ 8. A. The March 4, 1996 Bom bing Incident 5. On the af

ternoon of Ma

rch 4, 1996, G ail Be lkin, her mother, a nd one of he r daug hters we nt shopping for a we dding dr ess in the Dizeng off Cente r Shopping Ma ll in Tel Av iv, I sr a e l, a s h e r d a

ug hte r w a s e ng a g e d to be marr ie d. Af te r a tim e , th e da

ug hte r r e ma ine d in the ma ll s ho pp ingby

he rs e lf wh ile Ga il B e lki n a

nd he r m oth e r w e nt o uts ide . A t a pp ro ximate ly 4:00 p.m. on March 4, 1996, a suicide bomber a ffiliated with the Shaqa qi fac tion of the Palestinian I slamic J ihad (“ PI J ”) de tonated a 40- pound bomb that he was c arr ying just outside the doors of the shoppingmall in the vicinity of Ga il Belkin and he r mother. Ga il Belkin and he r mother, plus eleve n others, mostly women and c hildren, we re killed in the blast. 125 other individuals were injure d. Id. ; Plaintiff’s Ex hibit 3, Ex pert Repor t of Dr. Patric k Clawson (“Clawson Repor

t”) at 5, 8. 3wi th r e lia

ble and c re dib le te sti mony

re g ard ingthe inv olv e me nt o f I ra n, MO I S and

I RG C in sponsoring and org anizing ac ts of terror ism carr ied out ag ainst citiz ens of the United States. See Heiser v . Islamic Re

public of Iran , 466 F.Supp.2d 229, 265 (D.D .C. 2006). Hamas, which is the popular name for the I slamic Resistance Move ment (Ha rakat 4 alMuqawa

ma al-I slamiy a), is an or g anization that has been suppor ted over the y ear s by

the I sla mic Re pu bli c of Ira n, pr ima ri ly thr ou g h Ira

n’ s Mi nis tr

y of Inf or matio n a nd Se c ur ity (“ MO I S” ), and

its Re vo lut ion ary

Gu ard Cor ps . T he re are nume ro us op ini on s b y jud g e s o f t

his Court wh ic h h ave fo un d th at Ira n n ot o nly

is a ma jor so ur c e of su pp or t f or Ha ma s, bo th 6 6. The PI J suicide bomber w as identified a s Ramez abed el Ka der Ma chmad Ab i d , a r e s i d e n to f

th e C h an - Y un e s s r e f

u g e e c amp i nG a z a . H e w a s a kn o w na c t i v i s ti nth e P IJ wi th t he Sha qa qi f

a c tio n. Th e po lic e inv e sti g a tio n d e te rm ine d th a t Abid ha d b e e n s mug g le d into I srae l that day

by a truc k driver tr avelingfrom Ga za to Tel Aviv. Clawson Report at 6, 8. See Plaintiff’s Ex hibit 4, I srae li Pol ice Repor t, Event 27126 (“I srae li Pol ice Repor t”). 7. Ab id c arr ie d th e bo mb i n a bla c k b a g wi th t

wo c arr yingha nd le s. Th e ma in
e xplos ive wa s a

pp ro ximate ly

15 kil og ra

ms o f TNT , a

ro un d whic h w a s p a c ke d numb e r 1 0 n a ils so as to cause maxi mum pain, suffer ing, a nd death to anyone in the vicinity of the de tonation. The e x plosion was trig g ere d by power from 9 volt batterie s. When he arr ived at the Dizeng off Center, Abid attached the bagto his shoulders. Id
.

8
. T h e tr u c k dr i v e r w h o dr o v e Ab i d

i n t o T e l A v i v , S a i d

B i nH u s s a i nS u l i m an y, was subseque ntly

indicted and pr osecute d for smug g ling Abid into I srae l for the e quivalent of $1,100, and for

assisting in murder

and sabota g e. Sulimany , who was c onvicted of pr oviding support to terror ists, admitt ed that he kne w Abid was a PI J member a

nd that he wa s paid the equivalent of

$1,100 by

a PI J leade r to smugg le Abid into Tel Aviv. Clawson Report at 6. 9. Both the PI J and Hamas claimed r esponsibility for the D izengof

f Center bombing. There is evidence that Hamas pr ovided the bomb and that the PI J provided the suicide

4financ ially and in terr orist training , but also that I ran f ully knew of the purposes a

nd objectives of Hamas a nd approve d of them. See, e .g., Benne tt v. Islamic Re public of Iran, 507 F. Supp. 2d 11 7, 12 4 ( D. D. C. 2 00 7) ; Campuzano v. Islamic Re public of Iran, 281 F.Supp.2d 258, 262 (D .D .C. 20 03 ); Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 27 1 F .Su pp .2 d 2 86 (D .D .C. 20 03 ); Mousa v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 23 8 F .Su

pp .2 d 1 , 3 (D .D .C. 20 01 ); W einstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 18 4 F .Su

pp .2 d 1 3 ( D. D. C. 2 00 2) ; Eisenfeld v. I slamic Republic of Iran, 172 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D .D .C. 20 00 ); see also In reAbu Marzook, 924 F. Supp. 565 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
.

Th is b us bo mbi ngin I sr a e l ha s sp awn e d f our t e rr or ism

c a se s in thi s Co ur t: Bo do ff 5 v. Islamic R epublic of Iran , 4 24 F .Su pp .2 d 7 4 ( D. D. C. 2 00 6) ; Mousa v. Islamic Re public of Ira n, 23 8 F .Su pp .2 d 1 (D .D .C. 20 01 ); W einstein v. Islamic Re

public of Ira n, 18 4 F .Su

pp .2 d 1 3 ( D. D. C. 20 02 ); Eisenfe ld v. Islam ic R epub lic of Iran, 172 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D .C. 2000). 7 b o mb e r an d f a c i l i t at e d h i s tr an s p o rt at i o nt o T e l A v i v w h e r e th e b o mb w a s d e t o n a t e d
. T h e P IJ and Hamas are known to have c ollaborate d in other terr orist bombings, includingan Apr il 6, 19 94 inc ide nt whe re the su ic ide bo mbe r i n a c ar- bo mb atta c k o n a

bu s in Af a la , I sr a e l w a s a member of

the PI J , but the bomb was provided by Hamas. Id. at 6-7. 10. The c ontext for the PI J ’s bombing of the Dizeng off Cente r wa s the ong oing pe ace dis c us sio ns be tw e e n Pa le sti nia n Pr e sid e nt Y a ssa

r Ara fa t and I sr a e l. I ra n, a s w e ll a s it s a g e nts , Hamas a nd the PI J , was strong ly

opposed to any

kind of rec og nition of I srae l and soug ht by violence the reje ction of the Middle Ea st peac e proc ess. On F ebrua ry 28, 1996, Irania

n Vice President Habibi met with Hama s leade rs and PI J leade rs (includingRamadan Abdallah Shallah) in Damasc us, Sy

ria. It was re ported that Ha bibi stressed the continuation of Iran’ s support for the Palestinian oppositionis ts working ag ainst the pea ce a g ree ment. Plaintiff’s Ex hibit 5, Patterns of Globa l Terr orism, 1996; Cl awson Repor t at 4. This statement and mee ting oc curr ed in t he mid dle of

se ve ra l ma

jor bo mbi ng s in

I sr a e l, i nc lud ingtw o F e br ua ry 25 , 1 99 6 b omb ing s: one of a bus in J erusa lem and the other of a soldier

rest station in Ashkelon, plus a subseque nt bombing of

another bus in J erusa lem on Marc h 3, 2006. There is strong e vidence that the 58

Dizengof f Center bombing wa s actua lly

planned to occ ur on F ebrua ry 25, 1996 in coordination with the two other bombing s that did occur that day , but it did not occur beca use the truc k driver, who was pa id to drive the suicide bomber Abid into Tel Aviv, failed to show up that da y . Dr. Clawson opined that it was re asonable to conclude that at their mee ting of Fe bruar y 28, 1996, Iran’ s Vice Pre sident Habibi discussed with PI J leade r Shallah Iran’ s support for the PI J ’s suicide bombings a g ainst the I srae lis. The Dizengof f Center bombing ha

ppened a fewday s later. Id. C re d i b l e r ep o rt s d es cr i b e h o w Iran p l ed gedt o i n cr ea s e s u p p o rt b as edo nm aj o r t erro r k i l l i n gs
car ried out by

the PI J . Clawson Report at 2. 11 . T he a uto ps y of Ga il B e lki n w a s p e rf

or me d b y fo re ns ic patho log ist s Y e hu da Hi ss, M.D. and R. Nac hman, M.D. They found that she ha d suffe red f irst and sec ond deg ree burns on he r h e a d, ne c k, tr

unk, and lim bs . T he re we re nume ro us la c e ratio ns in t ho se same are a s. Mo st signific antly , the forc e of the explos ion cause d fra cture s of her cra nial and fa cial bones a s well as her r ibs. I t was the opinion of the f orensic pathologists that the ca use of Ga il Belkin’s de ath was the de ton a tio n o f e xplos ive s. Pla int if f’ s E xhibi t 6, Autop sy

Re po rt . 12 . A s a re su lt o f t

he de a th o f G a il B e lki n, he r e state su ff e re d e c on omi c los se s. This loss is based on a

projec ted work history

of 19 additional y ear s to retireme nt ag e and the n
rec eipt of a pe nsion for 15 y ear s to her life e x pecta ncy of 82.7 y ear s, based on the I srae li Bure au of Statistics li fe e x pecta

ncy tables. The total lost wag es for those 34 y ear s as re duced to pr esent value is $376,848. She also had f unera l expenses totaling $3,710, for a total of $380,558. See Plaintiff’s Ex hibit 10, Economic Report of Dov Weinstein, CPA (“Weinstein Report”).

13. L awr ence Be lkin suffere d sever e emotional distress as the result of the bombing a

nd g ruesome de ath of his wife . Whil e not pre sent at the Dizeng off Cente r at the a ctual9

time of the bomb’s detonation, he lear ned about the bombingvery shortly afte r it occur

red, a nd he wa s immediately

filled with anxi ety

knowing that his wife wa s then at the shoppingcente r. His fea r and c oncer

n incre ased w ith each pa ssing minute whe n he did not hear from his wife. 14. The e ntire country

of I srae l was at a

heig htened state of tension and f ear as the result of the spate of bombing s that had re cently happene d and which took the lives of numerous innocent civilians, many

of them childre n. The a

nx iety immediately

incre ased w ith the television media immediately

broadc asting photogr aphs of the ma ssive damag e at the a rea around the Center. Mr. B elkin was sicke ned as he watche d the spec ial cre ws of wor kers sc ouringthe sce ne for e very piece of human fle sh that could be re cover ed, in ac corda nce w ith J ewish law. See B e lki n D e c laratio n ¶

10 ; see also Plaintiff’s Ex hibit 7 (DVD of I srae li news showing post-bombing a ctivity

outside the Dizeng off Cente r). 15. L awr ence Be lkin’s anxi ety further incre ased w ith each c all to a hospital which re sponded that it had no information about a Gail B elkin. The hospitals told him he sh ou ld c on sid e r c a lli ngthe mor g ue . Within ho ur s o f t

he bo mbi ng , h e wa s ta

ke n to the mor g ue to vie w the bo dy

of a wo man b e lie ve d to be his wi fe . T he bo dy wa s so se ve re ly

inj ur e d in

the bla st that he could not identify his own wife while vie wing it. He was only able to identify

the jewe lry that sh e wa s w e ari ng , p art ic ula rl y he r d ist inc tiv e we dd ingri ngwh ic h h e ha d g ive n to he r. B e lki n Dec laration ¶ 11.

16. For over two year s after

his wife’s de ath, L awr ence Be lkin attended g roup the ra py se ssi on s to de a l w ithhis g ri e f a nd e mot ion s. Th e pr og ra

m w a s o pe ra

te d b y the I sr a e li g overnme nt and all of the pa rticipants wer e spouses of vic tims of terrorism. Even into 2004,
e ig ht ye ars a ft e r G a il B e lki n’ s murd e r, he wa s tr e a te d b y his phy sic ian f

or “ Ge ne ra lize d A nxie ty10

Disorder ” which w as attributed to Ga il Belkin’s de ath and his experienc es in I srae l. On
oc c a sio n, he sti ll e xpe ri e nc e s an o ve rwhe lmi ngse ns e of anxie ty a sso c iate d w iththe e ve nts of his wife’ s death. B elkin Dec laration ¶¶ 12-14.

17. In 2001, L awr ence Be lkin decided to move ba ck to the United States to an environment of greater quiet a nd less intensity . He c urre ntly resides in the Commonwea lth of Virg inia. Be lkin Declar ation ¶ 14.
B. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad 18. The Palestinian I slamic J ihad was f ounded by

Sunni I slamic fundame ntalist Fathi Sha qa qi i n th e 19 70 s. Al mos t f ro m th e outse t, P I J lea de rs have pr ou dly pr oc la ime d th e ir

c los e
c onne c tio n w iththe Ira

nia n g ov e rnme nt. In 1 98 1, F a thi Sha qa qi wro te a bo ok a bo ut h is admiration for

the I slamic Republic of Iran. Par ticularly rema rkable about the PI J ’s long aff iliation with I ran is how they have a lway s worked tog ether cooper atively

notwithstanding the longsta nding disa g ree ments betwee n the Sunni and Shia Muslim fac tions, on both religious and socio-ec onomic g rounds. PI J leade rs trave led fre quently to I ran, of

ten beingshown in the Irania n media mee ting with top offic ials in the Irania n g overnme nt. The PI J actively defe nded Iran a

nd its ideology

to Sunni ex tremists who were put off by Iran’ s Shii te majority . Clawson Report at 2-3; Plaintiff’s Exhi bit 8, Dr. Clawson’s testimony in Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civ il Action No. 97-396 ( Marc h 3, 1998) (“ Clawson Testimony ”) a t 146-147. 19. After the 1987 outbrea

k of a Pale stinian popular uprisingag ainst I srae l, the PI J was the group which most loudly and openly

procla imed the nee d for ter rorist attac ks on I srae li civilians at a time when most other Palestinian extremists thought such attac ks were11

unwise tac tics. The Shaqaqi f action of the PI J was re latively small, numbering a fe w hundre d members, but it was pa

rticularly violent. For the next 12 y ear s, the PI J had fe w ac tiviti es other than ca rry ing out ter

rorist ac ts (unlike other ter rorist g roups such a s Hamas a nd Hezbollah which also undertook c haritable and political ac tiviti es). Clawson Repor t at 2-4; Clawson Testimony at 148; Plainti ff’ s Ex hibit 9, testi mony of terr orism expert Harr

y B. B randon in Flato w v . I sla mi c Republic of Iran, Civ. Action No. 97-396 (“ Br andon Te stimony ”) at 174.

20 . T he PI J has be e n f

ound re sp on sib le fo r m any

oth e r t e rr or ist

a tta c ks in I sr a e l, including the April 9, 1995 bus bombing in which A lisa Flatow w as killed and Seth Ha im was
sever ely injured. See F

latow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 99 9 F . Su pp . 1 (D .D .C. 19 98 ); Haim v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 425 F.Supp.2d 56 (D.D .C. 2006).

C. Iran’s Support for the PIJ 21. In the mid-1990s, Iran ha d an urg ent desire to disrupt the Middle East peac e pr oc e ss whic h a

pp e are d to be mov ingfo rw ard a t th a t ti me . Ira

n c on sid e re d te rr or ist

a c tiv iti e s in I srae l and the murde r of I srae li civilians carr ied out by the PI J as an e ffe ctive mea ns of damag ing relations between I srae l and the Palestinian Authority . Acc ordingto Dr. Clawson, by supporting the PI J , Iran e nhance d its standing with ra dical I slamic extremists, especially amongSunni Muslims who would otherw ise be hostile to the Shiite I slamic Republic of Iran. I ran pr ovided the PI J not only

with financing , but also with advanc ed military trainingand munitions technolog y

that allowed the PI J to evolve into a dang erous a nd eff ective te rror ist orga

nization. Clawson Report at 2.Fathi Shaqaqi was shot and killed on Octobe r 26, 1995 by an unknown 6 profe ssional assassin, g ener ally believed to be an I srae li operative.

12 22. In 1990, afte r F athi Shaqaqi ar rived in Damascus, PI J operatives beg an trainingat Hezbollah camps in L ebanon unde r the super vision of I rania

n Revolutionary

Guar ds statio ne d in

that c ountr

y and c arr ie d o ut s ome joi nt o pe ra tio ns wi th H e zbo lla

h a g a ins t I sr a e li forc es in south L ebanon.

23. The strongconsensus among sc holars of Pale stinian ex tremism is that from 1988 until about 2000, the PI J was he avily depende nt on I rania

n g overnme nt support. Severa l experts, including Dr . Reuvan Paz and Ha rry B. B randon, the former

Chief of the F BI ’s Counte rt e rr or ism

Se c tio n, op ine d in

19 98 that th e Ira

nia n g ov e rnme nt w a s v ir

tua lly the so le support of the PI J . Whil e in a 1994 inter view of F athi Shaqaqi by Ara b journalists, Shaqaqi de nie d th e a c c e pte d f

igur e that th e PI J wa s r e c e ivi ng$2 0, 00 0, 00 0 th a t y e ar f ro m Ira n, he did admit rec eiving $3,000,000 to support PI J terror ism. Cl awson Repor t at 4-5 (c iting testimony from Dr . Paz); Bra

ndon Testimony

at 176. 24. The Irania

n Ministry

of Information and Sec urity , duringthe 1990s and be y on d, a c te d a s a

c on du it f or the I sla mic Re pu bli c of Ira n’ s p ro vis ion

of fu nd s a nd tr a ini ngto the Shaqaqi fa ction for its terr orist activities in the Gaza strip reg ion. Clawson Report at 5.

25. The PI J ’s depe ndence on Iran de epene d afte r the 1995 de ath of F athi Shaqaqi. Shaqaqi’s succ essor Shallah fa ced the challeng e of showingthat the PI J was still an

6 imp or tant f or c e , e sp e c ia lly

a s th e larg e r H ama s o rg anizatio n h a d s te pp e d u p it s te rr or ist ic
a c tiv iti e s. In th e we e ks pr ior to t he Di zen g of

f b omb ing , H ama s h a d s te pp e d u p it s a c tiv iti e s to
un de rm ine Ar a fat and

the Pa le sti nia

n Auth or ity . O n th e da

y be fo re the Di zen g of

f b omb ing , in13

response to I srae li pressure f ollowing the spate of suicide bombing s, Araf at outlawed para milit ary org anizations including Hamas and the PI J , and Palestinian police a rre sted 800 I slamic milit ants and seized lar g e quantities of e x plosives. Clawson Report at 4.

26 . T he Patte rn s o f G lob a l T e rr or ism wa s a n a nnua l r e po rt

by the State De pa rtme nt b a se d o n s tatis tic a l data on signif ic ant i nte rn a tio na l te rr or ist inc ide nts (t

he State Depa rtment now publishes similar information in its C ountry Reports on Ter

rorism). The Patterns of Globa l Terr orism report f or 1996, the year

in which the bombing that killed plaintiff’s wife oc curr ed, stated: “ Iran r emained the premier state sponsor of te rror ism in 1996 . . . I ran
c on tin ue d to pr ov ide su

pp or t – i nc lud ingmon e y , w e a po ns and tr a ini ng– to a

va ri e ty of te rr or ist g roups, such a s Hezbollah, Hamas a nd the Palestine I slamic J ihad (“ PI J ”).” Plaintiff’s Ex hibit 5. 27. Iran w as desig nated a state sponsor of te rror ism in 1984 and has been on the State Depa

rtment’s list of state sponsors of ter rorism eve r since. Se e Da mm ar e ll v . I sla mi c Republic of Iran, 40 4 F .Su pp .2 d 2 61 , 2 73 -7 4 ( D. D. C. 2 00 5) ; se e als o 22 C.F.R. § 126.1(d) (2008); 31 C.F.R. § 596.201 (2009) ; Deter mination Pursuant to S ection 6(I ) of the E x port Administration Act of 1979-- Iran, 49 F ed. Reg . 2836 (Jan. 23, 1984).

28. The Ministry

of Information and Sec urity (“MOI S”), Iran’ s intelligenc e service , is a major Irania

n ag ency desig nated by

Iran to he lp org anize Irania n g overnme nt support to the PI J . MOI S operate s both within and bey ond Irania n territory . Wit h approximately 30,000 ag ents, MOI S is t he lar g est intellige nce a g ency in the Middle East. MOI S acted a s a conduit for Iran’ s provision of funds and tra ining to the Shaqa qi fac tion of the PI J for its terr orist activities. Iran’ s intelligenc e ser

vices fa cilitate and dire ct terr orist attacks. MOI S’s provision of material support and re source s for ter rorism is conducted w ith the approva l of the hig hest levels of theAlthough not ne cessa ry to the resolution of this case , the Court may take judicial 7 notice of f

acts a nd conclusions made by

J udg e L amber

th in the Flato w and Haim c a se s. Whil e the eve nt underlying those two case s occur red e leven months prior to the e vent in this matter, the longsta nding r elationship betwee n Iran a nd the PI J found by

the Court in those two case s (that we re de c ide d e ig ht ye ars a pa rt ) i s r e le va

nt t o th is c a se , p art ic ula

rl y so be c a us e the y are so consistent. See H

eiser v. I slamic Republic of Iran , 4 66 F .Su pp .2 d at 26 2- 26 3; Ha im v . I sla mi c Republic of Iran, 42 5 F .Su pp .2 d at 60 ; Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. at 14; F ED . R. E V ID . 201(e)
. 14 Ira nia n r e g ime . Cl aws on

Re po rt at 5, 7; accord, H

aim v. Islamic R epublic of Iran, 425 F.Supp.2d
a t 61 ; Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. at 11. 7

29 . A no the r m e ans by

wh ic h Ira

nia n s up po rt fo r t e rr or ism

is c arr ie d o ut i s thr ou g h th e Ira

nia n Re vo lut ion ary

Gu ard Cor ps (“ I RG C” ), the a c tiv iti e s o f whic h a re c are fu lly controlled by

the Irania

n g overnme nt. Since 1988, score s of PI J operatives from the West Ba nk
and Ga za h ave re c e ive d Ira

nia n mi lit ary and te rr or ist tr a ini nga t ba se s r

un by the I RG C in L ebanon a

nd in I ran itself. Iran ha s provided the PI J with expl osives and we apons, as we ll as the trainingrequire d to use such we apons. It is reasona bly believed that these we apons ca me from I RGC stocks or throug h I RGC channels. Clawson Repor t at 7-8. 30 . D r. Cla

ws on op ine d, to a

re a so na ble de g re e of

c e rt itu de , th a t th e I sla

mic Republic of Iran, through its ag encie s MOI S and the I RGC, provided fundingand tra ining to the PI J both before and af

ter Mar ch 4, 1996 in orde r to fac ilitate the PI J ’s ability to car ry out terror istic activities, including suicide bombings, a nd particula

rly the suicide bombingon Marc h 4, 1996 of the Dizeng off Cente r. Such trainingwould include how to oper ate e x plosive device s
and ho w t o a c hie ve ma ximumde ath a nd de str uc tio n. Ira

n, thr ou g h M OI S and

the I RG C, w ou ld have pr ovided fundingto car ry out terror ist attacks, including pay ment for smug g ling the suic ide bomber throug h I srae li security to the place of detonation. Cl awson Repor t at 8.Where a pendingaction wa s broug ht under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a) (7) a nd is not 8 ref iled under Sec tion 1605A, the district courts re tain jurisdiction pursuant to § 1605(a)( 7) over case s that were pendingunder that section when Cong ress e nacte d the NDAA
. See Simon v

. 15 I I I . CONCLUSI ONS OF LAW A. Jurisdiction Th e F or e ig n So ve re ig n Immunit ie s A c t ( “ F SI A” ) e sta bli sh e s th e g e ne ra l pr inc ipl e that f or e ig n s tate s are immun e fr om s uit in Unit e d St a te s c ou

rt s. Th e statut e a lso se ts o ut c e rt a in exceptions to the rule for limited categ ories of c ases. Thus, the F SI A provides the sole basis for
asser ting jurisdiction over

fore ign sove reig ns. Argentine Re public v. Ame rada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 434-34 (1989). Aparty may not ge nera lly

bringan ac tion for money damag es in U.S. courts ag ainst a for eig n state. 28 U.S.C. § 1604. The “state -sponsored terror ism” exception, now set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A and f ormerly at 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)( 7),
remove d a for eig n state’s immunity from suits for money

damag es brought in U.S. courts where plaintiffs seek da

mag es ag ainst the fore ign state for pe rsonal injury or death cause d by

“an a ct of torture, e x trajudicial killing, a ircra ft sabotag e, hostag e taking , or the provision of mate rial
su pp or t or re so ur c e s” fo r s uc h a

n a c t if su c h a c t or

pr ov isi on

of mate ri a l su

pp or t “ is e ng a g e d in by an off icial, employ ee, or

ag ent of such f

oreig n state while a cting within the scope of his or he r of fi c e , e mpl oy

me nt o r a g e nc y .” 28 U. S.C. § 1 60 5A (a )( 1) ; see H eiser v. I slamic Republic of Iran , 466 F.Supp.2d at 304.

On J anuar

y 28, 2008, the National De fense Authorization Act for F iscal Ye ar 20 08 (“ND AA ” ), Pub . L . N o. 11 0- 18 1, re pe a le d Se c tio n 1 60 5( a )( 7) of Ti tle 28 and

re pla c e d it with a new se ction codified at Section 1605A of the same title. See Simon v . Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187, 1189 ( D.C. Cir. 2008), rev’d on other grounds , 129 S. Ct . 2183. 8Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d at 1192. Section 1605A expanded the potential c lass of plaintiffs by including a

ny member 9 of the a rmed for ces or

any employ ee or

contra ctor of the U.S. gove rnment, re g ardle ss of nationality
. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)( 2)(A) (ii)(I I ) and ( I I I ). 16 Section 1083(c) (3) of

the NDAA , in releva

nt part, authorizes a pla intiff who has “timely commence d” a “ related ac tion” under Sec tion 1605(a)( 7), to bringany other a ction arisingout of the same a ct or incide nt,” provided that “the [new] action is commence d” within 60 day s of “the da

te of the e nactment of

[t he NDA A].” Simon v. Re public of Iraq, 529 F.3d at 1192. Th e ND AAwa s e na c te d o n Jan ua ry 28 , 2 00 8. Pla int if

f L awr e nc e B e lki n c omm e nc e d th is “re lated ac tion” on Marc h 28, 2008, within the 60-day window of the N DAA. In order to subject a for eig n sovere ign to suit under Sec tion 1605A, a plaintiff
mus t sh owthat: ( 1) the fo re ig n s ov e re ig n w a s d e signate d b y the State De pa

rtme nt a s a

“ state sponsor of ter

rorism” whe n the ac ts occurr ed and r emains so desig nated whe n the matter w as ref iled, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)( 2)(A) (i)(I ); (2) that the victim or claimant wa s a U.S. national at the time the ac ts took place, see2 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 5 A( a) (2 )( A) (i i )( I ); an d (3 ) t h atth e f

o re i gn
sovere ign e ng ag ed in conduc t that falls within the ambit of the statute. See28 U. S.C. § 1605A(a )(1)
. 9

Eac h of the re quirements is met in this case. F irst, defe ndant Iran ha s been de signate d a

state sp on so r o f t e rr or ism c on tin uo us ly sin c e Janu ary

19 , 1 98 4, and

wa s so desig nated at the time of the attac k. See 22 C.F.R. § 126.1(d) ( 2008); 31 C.F.R. § 596.201 (2009). Sec ond, the plaintiff wa s a United States citizen when the mur der of the dec edent
occur red a nd at the time plaintiff filed this ac tion. Finally , defe ndant Iran’ s persistent financ ial and org anizational material support of the entity or entities that committed an extrajudicialThe F SI A utiliz es the same definition of “e x trajudicial killing” as the Tor ture 10 Victim Protection Act of 1991, whic h define s an “e x trajudicial killing” as “a deliberate killing no t a uth or ize d b y

a pr e vio us jud g me nt p ro no un c e d b y a re g ula rl y c on sti tut e d c ourt

a ff or din g a ll judicial g uara

ntees whic h are rec og nized as indispensable by civiliz ed people .” See 28 U. S.C. § 1605A(h)( 7); Peterson v . Islamic Re public of Iran , 264 F.Supp.2d 46, 61 (D.D .C. 2003). 17 killing and the pr ovisions of material support has be en esta blished and it falls square ly within the ambit of the statute. Def endants MOI S and the I RGC are political subdivisions of the State of 10 Iran, a nd there fore are treated as membe rs of the State of Iran itself. Ro e de r v . I

sla mi c Re pu bli c of Iran, 333 F.3d 228, 234 ( D.C. Cir. 2003), cert. de nied, 54 2 U .S. 91 5 ( 20 04 ); see also Salazar v. Islamic R epublic of Iran, 370 F.Supp.2d 105, 116 (D.D .C. 2005) (ana logizing the I RGC to the MOI S for purposes of

liability , and conc luding that both must be treated as the State of Iran itself). Ther efor e, the same deter minations that apply

to the conduct of

MOI S and the I RGC apply to the conduct of

Iran.
B. Se rv ic e of Pro c ess Personal jurisdiction exis ts over a non- immune sovereig n as longas ser vice of proce ss has bee n made unde r Section 1608 of the F SI A. See Ste rn v. Islamic Re public of Iran, 27 1 F .Su pp .2 d at 29 8 ( D. D. C. 2 00 3) ; see also Fe d. R. Civ. P . 4(j). Servic e of the orig inal complaint was e ffe cted on a ll three De fenda nts under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a) (4). See Plaintiff’s Exhi bit 1. Pla int if

f d id n ot s e rv e the ame nd e d c omp la int on de fe nd ants . Wh e re c ha

ng e s ma de in
an ame nded complaint ar e “not substantial,” the require ment of Rule 5(a )(2) of the F eder al Rules of Civ il Pr oc e dure that a

ple a din g that st a te s a

ne w c la im f

or re lie f a g a ins t a

pa rt y in d e fa ult mus t be ser ved on that par

ty is not applicable. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 5( a )( 2) ; se e als o B lai s v . I sla mi c Republic of Iran , 4 59 F . Su pp . 2 d 4 0, 46 (D .D .C. 20 06 ); Dammare ll v. Islamic Re public of Iran ,18

37 0 F . Su pp . 2 d 2 18 , 2 24 (D .D .C. 20 05 ). Pla int if f’ s ame nd e d c omp la int

did no t su bs tanti a lly chang e the a lleg ations in the orig inal complaint and did not add new defe ndants. The c auses of action ar e esse ntially

the same, but, a s expl ained be low, are now ava ilable under another source of law — na

mely , Section 1605A. The Court will not require the plaintiff to serve the amende d complaint. See Blais v. Islamic Re public of Iran , 4 5 9 F
. S u

p p . 2 d a t4 6 ( am e n d e d

F S IA complaint which adde d cause s of ac tion based on state substantive law as we ll as the fede ral statut or y sc he me ne e d n ot b e se rv e d o n f or e ig n s ov e re ig n in

de fa ult ); Da mm ar e ll v . I

sla mi c Republic of Iran , 3 70 F . Su pp . 2 d at 22 4. Ac c or din g ly , th is C ourt ha s in personam jurisdiction
ov e r d e fe nd ants Ira

n, MO I S and

the I RG C. C. Legal Standard f

or FSIA De

fault Judgment In an ac tion over which subjec t matter jurisdiction exi sts by virtue of the

“ t e r r o r i s me x c e p t i o n ” o f

2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 5 A , “ [ n ] o j u d g m e n tb y d e f a u l ts h a l l b e e n t e r e d

b y a court of the United States or of a state ag ainst a for eig n state . . . unless the c laimant establishes his c la im o r r ig ht t o r e lie f b y e vid e nc e satis fa c tor

y to t he c ourt .” 28 U. S.C. § 1 60 8( e ); see Roede r v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 333 F.3d at 232-33. In defa ult judgment ca ses, plaintiffs may prese nt such evidenc e in the for m of aff idavits or decla

rations rather than through live witnesses testifying in ope n court. Bodoff v. Islamic Re public of Iran, 42 4 F .Su

pp .2 d at 82 ; Campuzano v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 281 F.Supp.2d 250, 268 (D.D .C. 2003). Upon eva luation, the Court may acc ept any

uncontrove rted e vidence prese nted by plaintiffs as true
. He ise r v . I sla mi c Republic of Iran , 466 F.Supp.2d at 255 ( citing Campuzano v. Islamic Re public of Iran, 281 F.Supp.2d at 268). This Court ac cepts a nd cre dits the uncontested evide nce a nd testimony19

su bmi tte d b y

pla int if f a nd his wi tne sse s in

thi s c a se a s tr

ue . N ot o nly

have the de fe nd ants in t

his action not objecte d to such evidenc e or e ven appe are d to contest it, but the Court finds the evidenc e submitted by

plaintiff to be re levant and highly probative of

the claims asse rted.
D. Gove rning Law The F SI A, as amended, c reates a fe dera l cause of ac tion ag ainst fore ign states, for wh ic h b oth

c omp e ns ator

y and punit ive dama g e s ma

y be awa rd e d, fo r p e rs on a l in

jur y or de a th
cause d by an extrajudicial killing or by the provision of mater ial support or re source s by the fore ign state, amongother a cts. See 28 U. S.C. § 1 60 5A (a )( 1) and (c )( 1) ; see also Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d at 1190. This area of law ha s been in flux. I n 2004, the cour t of
a pp e a ls h e ld t

hat w hil e the F SIA w a ive d s ov e re ig n immun ity fo r s tate sp on so rs of

te rr or ism , it did not “cre ate[] a private rig ht of ac tion ag ainst a for eig n g overnme nt.” Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024, 1033 ( D.C. Cir. 2004). In the same year , the cour t of appea ls also held that FSIA plaintiffs ca nnot state a c laim ag ainst fore ign states under the

“ g e ne ri c c omm on

law” but mu st “ ide nti fy

a pa rt ic ula r c a us e of a c tio n a ri sin g out of

a sp e c if ic
source of law.” Acreev. Re public of Iraq , 370 F.3d 41, 59 ( D.C. Cir. 2004). These de cisions left F SI A p la int if

fs wi th t he op tio n o f s uin g fo re ig n o ff ic ia ls f or dama g e s in

the ir pe rs on a l c a

pa c iti e s,
a c a us e of a c tio n w hic h w a s c re ate d b y the F latow

Am e ndme nt, P.L . 1 04 -2 08 , 1 10 Stat. 3 0 0 9 -1 7 2 (p u

b l i s h edas a n o t e t o 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 5 ), o r t o ad v an ce cl ai m s aga i n s tth e f o re i gn state base d on a spec ific, non-f eder al source of law, suc h as the lawof the U.S. state that is or was the domicile of

the injured pa

rty or dec edent. Se e Ga te

s v . S y ria n A ra b R e

pu bli c , 5 80 F. Supp. 2d 53, 65 (D.D.C. 2008).20 S ec t i o n1 6 0 5 A o f t h e N DA A c h an gedth e m ec h an i s mfo r r ec o v ery b y cr ea t i n g a fede ral private rig ht of ac tion ag ainst fore ign state sponsors of ter rorism for c ompensatory damag es for

economic loss, solatium, and pain a nd suffe ring , as we ll as for punitive dama g es. Se e 28 U. S.C. § 1 60 5A (a ) a nd (c ); Acosta v. I

slamic Republic of Iran , 574 F. Supp. 2d 15, 25 (D.D.C. 2008). N ow that Cong ress ha s cre ated a n express fede ral c ause of action, neither

the Court nor plaintiff nee d rely on state tort theorie s of re cover y for plaintiff’ s claims. See Gates v. Sy ria n A ra b R e

pu bli c , 580 F. Supp. 2d at 65-66 ( “B y providing for a

private r ight of

action and by prec isely enumer ating the ty

pes of damag es re cover able, Cong ress ha s eliminated the inconsistencies that a

rise in these c ases whe n they are decide d under state law.”)
. E. Vicarious Liabil ity for the Torts Committed by the PI J One of the substantive base s of the def endants’ liability

is that at a minimum t hey eng ag ed in the “pr ovision of material support a nd resour ces” to the PI J , which ca rried out the terror ist bombi ng of the Dizeng off Cente r and c aused the death of Gail B elkin. The a cts of another may rende r a pa

rty liable “unde r theorie s of vicar ious liabili ty , such as c onspiracy , aiding and abe tting and induc ement.” Haim v. I slamic Republic of Iran, 42 5 F .Su pp .2 d at 69 . T his Court finds that civil conspiracy provides a ba sis of liabilit y for de fenda

nts I ran a nd MOI S and,
acc ording ly , it declines to rea ch the issue of whether they might also be liable on other the ories of liability
. See A costa v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 574 F. Supp. 2d at 26; He ise r v . I sla mi c Republic of Iran , 466 F.Supp.2d at 266-68.

The e lements of civil conspira cy consist of (1) a

n ag ree ment betwee n two or more persons or e ntities; (2) to participate in a n unlawful a ct or in an othe rwise law ful ac t in an unlawful manne r; (3) that an injury or death or other damag es wa s cause d by an unlawf

ul overt21

act pe rfor med by one of the parties to the a g ree ment and (4) pursuant to or in fur thera nce of the common scheme
. See Acosta v. I slamic Republic of Iran , 574 F. Supp. at 27 ( citing Halberstam v. W elch, 705 F.2d 472, 477 ( D.C. Cir. 1983)).

I t is ax iomatic that the “a g ree ment” ele ment “may be infe rre d from conduc t.” Bodoff v. Islamic Re

public of Iran , 424 F.Supp.2d at 84 ( citing W eishapl v. Sowers, 771 A.2d 10 14 , 1 02 3 ( D. C. 2 00 1) ); see also Haim v . Islamic Re public of Iran, 425 F.Supp.2d at 69. B ased on the evidenc e submitted to this C ourt, most notably the Clawson Report, plaintiffs have
e sta bli sh e d th at Ira

n, MO I S, the I RG C and

the PI J ac te d in

c on c e rt be c a us e the y ha d a g re e d to
co m m i th i ghp ro fi l e t erro ri s mac t i v i t i es t o p ro m o t e Iran ’s b ra n d o f r ev o l u t i o n ary

I s l am i c i d eo l o gy
and to f ur the r t he g oa l of dama g ingI sr a e l and

its c iti zen s a s w e ll a s U nit e d St a te s’ int e re sts whene ver possible. Clawson Report at 3-4. Such a g ree ment also may be infe rre d from the substantial financia l support and trainingthat Iran, MOI S and the I RGC provided to the PI J
. See id. at 2
- 4
. T h e v e r

y “ < sp on so rs hip of

te rr or ist a c tiv iti e s inhe re ntl y

inv olv e s c on sp ir a c y

to c omm it terror ist acts.’” Bodoff v. Islamic Re public of Iran , 4 2 4 F. S u

p p . 2 d at8 4 (qu o t i n g Flatow v. Islamic Re

public of Iran , 999 F. Supp. at 27). The e vidence also clea

rly establishes that the PI J car ried out the seque nce of conduct that killed the de cede nt. See Cla ws on Re po rt a t 5- 7. Dr . Cl aws on ’s Re po rt a lso demonstrates to the satisfaction of this Court that the torts alleg ed by plaintiffs wer e ca

rried out in “ fu rt he ra nc e of the sc he me ” be tw e e n th e PI J, Ira n, MO I S, the I RG C, a

nd lik e ly Ha ma s, to disrupt the Middle Eastern pe ace talks. See id. a t 6. F or the se re a so ns , e a c h o f t

he fo ur e le me nts of c ivi l c on sp ir a c y

is e sta bli sh e d und e r D istri c t of

Col umb ia

law, wi th r e g ard

to t he de fe nd ants and the PI J perpe trators. See also Valore v . Islamic Re public of Iran, 478 F.Supp.2d 101, 108-0922

(D.D.C. 2007) ( civil conspirac y basis for vica

rious liability

established with re spect to Iran a nd MOI S’ provision of “mater ial support and re source s to Hezbollah” to bomb U.S. Marine bar rac ks in Be irut).
F. So lat ium an d I nte nti on al I

nfl ic tio n o f E mo tio na l D ist

re ss Count I I Iof the F irst Amended Complaint seeks damag es for solatium under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Counts I V and IV-A of that complaint seek da

mag es for intentional infliction of emotional distress, under both the c ommon law of the District of Columbia and under Sec tion 1605A(c). T he cour ts in thi s jurisdiction have g ener ally viewed solatium and intentionally

inflicted emotional distress cla ims as being closely connec ted. See , e.g. , Surette v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 2 3 1 F
. S u

p p . 2 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 7 n . 5 ( D
. D
. C
. 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ Inth e c o n t e x to f F S IA
case s, this C ourt has re cog nized the claim of solatium as . . . indistinguishable fr om the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress”). Plaintiff re cog nizes that there ca n be but one a

war d of dama g e s f

or the c la ims ma de in C ounts I I I , IV a nd I V- A. B e c a

us e se c tio n 1 60 5Ae xplic itl y makes damag es for

solatium available, the Court will proce ed under this theory

of re cover

y . See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c).

A claim of solatium is a cla im for the mental a ng uish, berea

vement and grief that those with a close pe rsonal re lationship to a dece dent experienc e as the result of the de cede nt’s death, a s well as the ha

rm ca used by the loss of the dec edent, soc iety and comf

ort. Dammare ll v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 28 1 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 05 , 1 96 -9 7 ( D. D. C. 2 00 3) ; Elah i v . I sla mi c Re pu bli c of Iran, 124 F.Supp.2d 97, 110 (D.D .C. 2000). Acts of ter rorism are by

their ver y definition extreme and outra g eous and intende d to cause the hig hest deg ree of emotional distress. Stethem23

v. Islamic R epublic of Iran, 201 F. Supp. at 89. Prior to the Cicippio-Puleo de c isi on , c ourt s regularly rec og nized the distress of spouses of ter rorism victims by

awa rdingsolatium damag es to such spouses. See W

einstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 184 F.Supp.2d 13, 23 (D.D .C. 2002); Higgins. v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 20 00 WL33 67 43 11 a t *7 -8 (D .D .C. Se pt. 21 , 2 00 0) ; see also Alejandre v. Re

public of Cuba, 99 6 F . Su pp . 1 23 9, 12 49 (S .D . F la . 1 99 7) . T he Court wi ll
aw ar d d am a g e s t o M r . B e l k i nun d e r C o un tIII
. G. Plaintiff ’s W

rongful Death Claims Count Ialleg es wrong ful death under District of Columbia law ( 16 D.C. Code § 2701); Count I Ialleg es wrong ful death under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c ); and Count V alleg es wrong ful death under I srae li law. Eac h of these c ounts seek esse ntially the same r emedy

— compensation for ec onomic losses in the form of lost wag es, bene fits, retireme nt pay and fune ral expenses incurre d as the re sult of the extrajudicial killi ng of Ga il Belkin under the direc tion of de fe nd ants . Pl a int if

f r e c og nize s th at on ly

on e re c ov e ry

fo r t he se e c on omi c dama g e s is p e r m i s s i b l e . S e c t i o n1 6 0 5 A ( c ) e x p l i c i t l y p r o v i d e s f o r e c o n o m i c d am a g e s f

o r a d e a thc a u s e d b y a fore ign state sponsor of ter rorism. See28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a). A ccor dingly the Court will awar d damag es under

Count I I
. Se e Ga te

s v . S y ria n A ra b R e

pu bli c , 580 F. Supp. 2d at 69.Plaintiff has withdrawn his punitive dama g es dema nd. SeePlaintiff’s Proposed 11 Finding s of Fa ct and Conclusions of L aw in Support of Rene wed Motion for D efa ult J udg ment at 31-32. 24 I V. DAMAG ES A. Compensatory Damage s 11 To obtain damag es ag ainst defe ndants in an F SI A ac tion, the plaintiff must prove that th e c on se qu e nc e s o f t he de fe nd ants ’ c on du c t w e re “ ‘r e a so na bly c e rt a in’ (i .e ., mor e lik e ly tha n n ot) to o c c ur , a

nd mus t pr ov e the amou

nt o f t he dama g e s b y

a ‘r e a so na ble e sti mate consistent with this [ Circuit’s] application of the Amer ican r ule on damag es.’” Salazar v. Islamic Re

public of Iran, 3 7 0 F. S u

p p . 2 d at1 1 5 -1 6 (qu o t i n g Hill v. Republic of Iran, 328 F.3d 680, 681 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (inter nal quotations omitt ed)) . Be cause there have be en so many case s in this Dist rict whe re f

amily members have bee n killed by terror ist bombi ng s, this C ourt is by no
means wr iting on a pr overbia l “clea n slate” in fa shioning a

damag es re medy

in this case. To the
c on tr ary , th is C ourt

is guid e d b y

re me dia l a

pp ro a c he s a

nd fo rm ula s, uti lize d in

sim ila r c a se s. Prevatt v. I

slamic Republic of Iran, 42 1 F . Su pp .2 d 1 52 , 1 60 (D .D .C. 20 06 ); Ha im v . I sla mi c Republic of Iran, 425 F.Supp.2d at 71.

In deter mining the a

ppropriate awa

rd of damag es for

solatium, the Court may

look to p ri or de c isi on s awa

rd ingdama g e s f

or int e nti on a l in fl ic tio n o f e mot ion a l di str e ss a s w e ll a s to decisions re g ardingsolatium. See A costa v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 574 F. Supp. 2d at 29. Whil e the loss suffe red by a spouse is diffic ult to quantify , courts ty pically awa rd betwe en $8 milli on and $12 million for the emotional distress re sulting fr om the death of a spouse. See , e.g. , id . at 30 ($ 8 mi lli on

to w if e of targ e t of te rr or ist a ssa ssi natio n) ; Heiser v . Islamic Re public of Iran , 466 F.Supp.2d at 293 (r elying on solatium cases to find that ra ng e of c ompensatory25

dama g e s f

or sp ou se s is $8 -1 2 mi lli on ); Gree nbaum v. I slamic Republic of Iran, 451 F.Supp.2d 90, 107-108 (D.D .C. 2006) ($9 million t o husband of woma n killed by

suicide bomber) ; Salazar v. Islamic R epublic of Iran, 370 F.Supp.2d at 116 (a war ding $10 million to the widow of a bo mbi ngvic tim ); Kerr v. Islamic Re public of Iran, 245 F.Supp.2d 59, 64 (D.D .C. 2003) (aw ard of $10 million t o the widow of a torture a nd hostag e takingvictim). One re cent a war d to a spouse was f

or $30 million. See Estate of Bayani v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 530 F.Supp.2d 40, 46 (D.D.C. 2007) ( $30 milli on awa rded to spouse whose husband wa s tortured a nd executed). Ba sed upon the we alth of ca ses involving immediate f amily members of

civilians kil le d in te rr or ist bo mbi ng s, thi s Co ur

t awa rd s so latium da

ma g e s o f $ 10 mil lio n to pla int if f i n h is
c a pa c ity a s th e hu sb and

of the de c e de nt. Th e Court be lie ve s th is a

wa rd is a pp ro pr iate in t

his c a se as it is not unli ke the a

war ds to other spouses whose w ives or husbands we re killed in suicide bombings. See Greenbaum v. Islamic R epublic of Iran, 451 F.Supp.2d at 107-08. The Court believes, how ever , that this plainti ff in par ticular is entitled to this higher awa rd due to the
e xtre me sh oc k h e e xpe ri e nc e d w he n h e ha d to vie w h is w if e ’s se ve re ly

dis fi g ur e d b od

y sh or tly afte r the bombingoccur

red. Such a

shockingexperience is one that he will neve r be a ble to put out of his mind and that will long continue to ca use pain a nd anxiety . For

that rea son, the Court wi ll a wa rd pla int if f $ 10 mil lio n o n h is s olatium c la im. To compute the e conomic dama g es assoc iated with plaintiff’s de ath, plaintiff has submitt ed a r eport fr om forensic economic e x pert Dov Weinstein, Plaintiff’s Exhi bit 10, Weinstein Report. The Weinstein Report bases its calc ulations on reasona ble and we ll-founded assumptions about the likely ear nings of Gail B elkin had she sur

vived. Id . M r. Wei ns te in conclude d that Mrs. Be lkin would have wor ked for 19 more y ear s and then, ba sed on her life26

expectancy , rec eived a

pension for 15 a dditional y ear s. Ba sed upon this forensic evidenc e, the lost wag es of Ga il Belkin re duced to pr esent va lue would be $376,848. See G ates v. Sy rian Arab Re pu bli c , 5 80 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 69 (c omp uti ngpr e se nt v a lue of the anti c ipate d e arn ing s o f v ic tim s of terr orism to awar d economic da mag es pursua

nt to Section 1605A(c)) . The a dditional amount of $3,710 is for Mrs. B elkin’s fune ral e x penses. See Finding s of Fa ct ¶ 12. Ac cording ly , the Court awar ds plaintiff wrong ful death damag es in the amount of $376,848 a nd $3,710, for a

total of $380,558.
B. Pr e jud gm e nt I nte re st Plaintiff reque sts prejudg ment interest for his solatium claim (formerly his I I ED
c la im) . “ I t is wi thi n th is C ourt ’s dis c re tio n to awa rd pla int if fs pr e jud g me nt i nte re st f

ro m th e date of the bombing. . . until the date of fina l judgment . . . [c]ourts in thi s Circuit have a war ded pr e jud g me nt i nte re st i n c a se s w he re pla int if fs we re de lay e d in

re c ov e ri ngc omp e ns a tio n f or the ir injuries – including, spe cifica lly , wher e such injuries w ere the re sult of targ eted attacks perpe trated by

fore ign de fenda

nts.” Pugh v. Soc ialist

People’ s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya , 530 F.Supp.2d 216, 263 (D.D .C. 2008) (re lying on Oldham v. Korean Air Lines Co., 127 F.3d 43, 54 (D.C. Cir. 1997); and Forman v. Korean Air lines Co., 84 F .3 d 4 46 , 4 50 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 6) ); see als o Ben Rafael v . Islamic Re public of Iran , 540 F.Supp.2d 39, 59 (D.D .C. 2008). The Court ag ree s that prejudg ment interest is appropr iate in this case a nd awa rds plaintiff pre

judgme nt int e re st o n h is s olatium c la im c omp ute d at a ra te of six pe rc e nt p e r a

nnum o n a

sim ple int e re st ba sis fr om M arc h 4 , 1 99 6 to the pr e se nt.27 C. Other Causes of Action Asserted in the Complaint In light of the se F indings of F act a nd Conclusions of L aw, it is not nece ssary for the Court to addre ss the other c laims asserted by the plaintiff under

either I srae li law or under customary

international law
. See Beaty v . Islamic Re public of Iraq, 480 F.Supp.2d at 92-93. (Count X). V. CONCLUSI ON

For the re asons explained above, the Court will award judg ment for plaintiff on Counts I Iand

I I Iof his ame nd e d c omp la int

and wi ll d ism iss the re ma ini ngc ounts . B e c a us e pla int if f h a s e sta bli sh e d a ri g ht t o d ama g e s a s a

dir e c t and

pr oximate re su lt o f d e fe nd ants ’ extreme and outra g eous conduc t and bec ause the evidenc e in the re cord a mply supports the
a lle g a tio ns in t

he c omp la int , a

jud g me nt c on sis te nt w iththe se fi nd ing s w ill be e nte re d a g a ins t de fe nd ants Ira

n a nd MO I S inthe amou

nt o f $ 10 mil lio n f

or so latium, p lus pr e

jud g me nt i nte re st at the rate of six percent pe r annum, dated to Marc h 4, 1996 when Ga il Belkin wa s murdere d, as well as $376,858 in lost wag es and $3,710 in fune ral a nd burial costs under

plaintiff’s wr ong ful death c laim. An

Or de r i n a c c or da

nc e wi th t he se F ind ing s o f F a c t and Con c lus ion s o f L aw s ha ll issue as of the date of this Opinion.
/s/__________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: September

30, 2009