Court Opinion

ID: 9946261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:03:47.539144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.832886
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AUGUST CABRERA, et al.,

                      Plaintiffs,

              v.                                         Civil Action No. 19-3835 (JDB)

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,

                      Defendant.

MARK ZAMBON, et al.,

                      Plaintiffs,

              v.

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,                                Civil Action No. 18-2065 (JDB)

                      Defendant.

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Between 2006 and 2019, a terrorist syndicate comprising, among other groups, al-Qaeda, the

Taliban, and the Haqqani Network (the “Syndicate”) perpetrated numerous terrorist attacks against

American servicemembers and civilians in Afghanistan. Victims of those attacks and their family

members brought these coordinated suits against the Islamic Republic of Iran under the terrorism

exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, alleging that Iran

provided material support for extrajudicial killings to the Syndicate. The Court now addresses the

claims of 125 of those plaintiffs, spanning thirty-three separate attacks (“Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs”).

I.     Background

       On July 19, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion setting out a framework for

analyzing the attacks at issue in Cabrera and Zambon, as well as plaintiffs’ related claims. See Cabrera
                                                   1
v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Cabrera I”), Civ. A. No. 19-3835 (JDB), 2022 WL 2817730 (D.D.C. July

19, 2022). In laying out this framework, the Court analyzed the claims of twenty-three plaintiffs

relating to eleven attacks (“bellwether plaintiffs” and “bellwether attacks”). Id. at *1. The Court

determined that “the Syndicate committed all eleven attacks,” “Iran’s material support substantially

contributed to the Syndicate’s ability to do so,” and Iran’s support was the proximate cause of the

deaths and injuries that formed the basis for the bellwether plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at *15; see id. at *41

(“[P]laintiffs’ injuries were not only foreseeable: they were the intended result of Iran’s support.”).

       The Court then determined that each bellwether plaintiff was entitled to recover under the

FSIA’s “private right of action against state sponsors of terrorism for plaintiffs who are United States

nationals, members of the armed forces, government employees or contractors, or legal representatives

of those people,” which authorizes suits “‘for personal injury or death caused by’ acts including

extrajudicial killing and hostage taking.” Id. at *41–42 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)). Immediate

family members of victims—and functional equivalents of immediate family members—were entitled

to recover “solatium awards,” which offer compensation for “the mental anguish, bereavement, and

grief that those with a close personal relationship to a decedent experience as the result of the

decedent’s death, as well as the harm caused by the loss of the decedent’s society and comfort.” Id.

(cleaned up). On May 16, 2023, the Court held that additional plaintiffs associated with the bellwether

attacks were entitled to recover solatium awards and awarded damages and prejudgment interest to

each plaintiff associated with the bellwether attacks. See Cabrera v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civ. A.

No. 19-3835 (JDB), 2023 WL 3496303 (“Cabrera II”), at *4–12 (D.D.C. May 16, 2023).

       The Court also entered a separate Order adopting an administrative plan to “govern further

proceedings as to the damages awards for the plaintiffs associated with Tranche 1 in this litigation.”

Order Adopting Admin. Plan Concerning Special Masters [ECF No. 128] (“Admin. Plan”) at 1. The

Court instructed the special masters to assess each family-member plaintiff’s standing under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1605A(c), which, as relevant here, requires each plaintiff to (1) be a U.S. national, and (2) “prove
                                                 2
that they are an immediate family member, or the functional equivalent, of an individual killed or

physically injured.” Admin Plan at 2–3. Then, the special masters would recommend findings of fact

on “the scope of each plaintiff’s compensatory damages . . . guided by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1605A, this Court’s [July 19, 2022] Memorandum Opinion, and any further orders that this Court may

enter.” Id. at 3 (cleaned up).

         The Court appointed David L. Broom, Christopher A. Byrne, Professor Eric D. Green, Paul G.

Griffin, Shelby R. Grubbs, Lester J. Levy, Dr. Susan Meek, Brad Pigott, Professor Stephen Allan

Saltzburg, and Professor C. Jackson Williams as special masters. Order Appointing Special Masters

[ECF No. 129]. The special masters submitted their reports on August 1, 2023. See Afghanistan-

Based Pls.’ Mot. For Default J. for Tranche 1 Pls. [ECF No. 231] (“Mot.”), Exs. 1–10. The Court now

considers the claims of 125 plaintiffs assigned to Special Master Broom, each of whom is associated

with a service member who was killed in the attacks at issue.

II.      Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Liability1

         This Court previously found that (1) a terrorist syndicate operated in Afghanistan during the

relevant time period of 2008–2017; (2) Iran provided material support for that syndicate; and (3) the

syndicate was responsible for each of the bellwether attacks in this case. Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730,

at *6–27. The Court now finds that the syndicate was likewise responsible for the attacks against the

U.S. servicemembers associated with the Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs.

         From at least 2006 to 2019, multiple terrorist groups—including the Taliban, the Haqqani

Network, the Kabul Attack Network, and al-Qaeda—made up a terrorist “syndicate” in Afghanistan.

The syndicate shared close strategic, tactical, and operational coordination, as well as a common goal:

re-establishing the Islamic Emirate by driving the United States and its allies out of Afghanistan

         1
           Under the FSIA, a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant where the court has subject matter jurisdiction
and the defendant has been served. GSS Grp., Ltd. v. Nat’l Port Auth., 680 F.3d 805, 811 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1330(b)). Plaintiffs successfully served Iran through the diplomatic process. Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *33.
Accordingly, so long as the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, it also has personal jurisdiction
over Iran.
                                                             3
through the killing and wounding of American troops. Id. at *6. Iran—a designated state sponsor of

terrorism—provided material support to the Syndicate in the form of weapons, training, financial

support, and safe haven. Id. at *9–12. In its earlier Opinion, the Court identified regions in which

particular syndicate terrorist groups operated during specific time periods.      See id. at *13–15

(identifying Southern Afghanistan, Loya Paktia, Kabul Province, Eastern Afghanistan, North Central

Afghanistan, Western Afghanistan, and Southeastern Afghanistan). The Court now finds that the

syndicate was responsible for each of the attacks associated with the Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs.

       The relevant attacks are as follows:

       1. November 2, 2007 Complex Attack, Uruzagan Province
       2. June 26, 2008 Complex Attack, Wardak Province
       3. August 22, 2008 IED Attack, Ghazni Province
       4. January 9, 2009 IED Attack, Zabul Province
       5. July 22, 2009 IED Attack, Zabul Province
       6. August 2, 2009 IED Attack, Wardak Province
       7. August 7, 2009 IED Attack, Wardak Province
       8. September 12, 2009 IED Attack, Wardak Province
       9. September 24, 2009 IED Attack, Zabul Province
       10. October 1, 2009 Infantry Attack, Logar Province
       11. November 13, 2009 IED Attack, Wardak Province
       12. November 23, 2009 IED Attack, Khost Province
       13. January 28, 2010 IED Attack, Uruzgan Province
       14. May 6, 2010 Indirect Fire Attack, Wardak Province
       15. May 14, 2010 Complex Attack, Logar Province
       16. June 11, 2010 Complex Attack, Logar Province
       17. June 23, 2010 Complex Attack, Logar Province
       18. July 6, 2010 IED Attack, Zabul Province
       19. July 14, 2010 IED Attack, Zabul Province
       20. July 18, 2010 IED Attack, Zabul Province
       21. August 31, 2010 IED Attack, Logar Province
       22. November 27, 2010 Infantry Attack, Wardak Province
       23. February 28, 2011 IED Attack, Wardak Province
       24. August 3, 2011 IED Attack, Wardak Province
       25. September 27, 2011 Indirect Fire Attack, Logar Province
       26. April 22, 2012 IED Attack, Ghazni Province
       27. July 8, 2012 IED Attack, Wardak Province
       28. July 13, 2012 IED Attack, Zabul Province
       29. July 22, 2012 Complex/IED Attack, Logar Province
       30. September 26, 2012 Complex Attack, Logar Province
       31. March 11, 2013 Insider Attack, Wardak Province
       32. April 6, 2013 Suicide Attack, Zabul Province
       33. July 23, 2013 Suicide Attack, Wardak Province
                                                 4
       The Court has already held that syndicate terrorist groups “likely” or “very likely” maintained

operational dominance in each of these provinces during the time of these attacks, with one exception:

the April 6, 2013 attack in Zabul. See id. The Court previously found that the Taliban “very likely

had operational dominance” in Zabul from 2008 to 2012, id.; the Court now credits Dr. Gartenstein-

Ross’s report that the Taliban “continued to demonstrate its operational dominance even after 2012 by

committing numerous attacks in 2013,” see Ex. 11 Expert Witness Report of Dr. Daveed Gartenstein-

Ross (Apr. 3, 2023) [ECF No. 231-11] at 51. The Court thus concludes that Iran is liable for each of

the above-listed attacks.

III.   Standing

       To satisfy the standing requirements of the FSIA’s private right of action, each plaintiff must

be a U.S. national (or otherwise meet certain criteria not relevant here) and must be an immediate

family member, or the functional equivalent, of an individual killed or injured in a relevant attack.

Admin Plan at 2–3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)). Special Master Broom determined that each plaintiff

is a U.S. citizen and that each of these plaintiffs was an immediate family member, or the functional

equivalent, of a victim killed in one of the above-listed attacks.

       He thoroughly recounted the devastating impacts of the syndicate’s attacks on the associated

family-member plaintiffs, and the Court has no doubt that each associated family-member plaintiff

suffered emotional distress as a result of the syndicate’s attacks on their loved ones. Thus, for the

reasons set forth in Cabrera, 2023 WL 3496303, at *4–7, the Court is satisfied that—with one

exception—each of the Tranche 1 Broom plaintiffs has met the standing requirements for the private

cause of action in § 1605A(c) and is entitled to seek solatium damages under that provision.

       As this Court explained in Cabrera II, “children born following terrorist attacks are not entitled

to damages under the FSIA.” 2023 WL 3496303, at *7 (citing cases); see also Davis v. Islamic

                                                    5
Republic of Iran, 882 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2012). 2 Plaintiff A.M.P. was born three months after

the attack that killed her father, PFC Michel Pridham Jr. See Mot., Ex. A, Compendium of Non-

Bellwether Pls.’ Damages Decls. Provided to Special Master David L. Broom [ECF No. 231-1] (“Pls.’

Decls.”) at 517. A.M.P.’s claims do not present any special circumstances that might warrant departure

from this Court’s prior approach. Accordingly, A.M.P. lacks standing to bring a solatium claim under

§ 1605A(c), and the Court will dismiss her claims.

IV.      Solatium Damages

         Section 1605A of the FSIA authorizes family-member plaintiffs to seek solatium damages. 28

U.S.C. § 1605A(c). 3 Solatium claims are “functionally identical to claims for intentional infliction of

emotional distress,” and are “intended to compensate persons for mental anguish, bereavement and

grief that those with a close personal relationship to a decedent experience . . . as well as the harm

caused by the loss of the decedent’s society and comfort.” Spencer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 71 F.

Supp. 3d 23, 27 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In granting these damages, the

Court’s “primary consideration is to ensure that ‘individuals with similar injuries receive similar

awards.’” Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *43 (quoting Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 77 F.

Supp. 3d 57, 70 (D.D.C. 2015)).

         Because solatium damages “are by their very nature unquantifiable,” Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at

         2
           The Court thus dismissed the claims brought by K.E.F.V., who was born two months after the attack that killed
her father, because she lacked standing to bring claims under the private right of action in § 1605A(c). Cabrera II, 2023
WL 3496303, at *7. On appeal, counsel for K.E.F.V. advocates—for the first time—that plaintiffs who are in utero at the
time of an attack may recover solatium damages under the FSIA. See Brief for Pl.-Appellant at 15–44, Cabrera v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, No. 23-7076 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 22, 2023). If the D.C. Circuit agrees that in-utero plaintiffs have standing
under the FSIA, this Court would conclude that A.M.P. is entitled to an award in the amount of $2.5 million. While A.M.P.
has been deprived of her father’s parental care and support, she has not suffered the same mental anguish as most plaintiffs
who experienced the loss of a parent. A 50% downward departure is thus appropriate here and maintains consistency
among awards. See Goldstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 383 F. Supp. 3d 15, 22–23 (D.D.C. 2019) (50% downward
departure for brother born two days after attack).
         3
           Section 1605 further authorizes economic damages, damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages. §
1605A(c). The Court previously concluded that “awarding substantial punitive damages” is appropriate but will defer
ruling on punitive damages until the compensatory damage awards of all plaintiffs in this case have been decided. Cabrera
I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *56–57.
                                                             6
72, this Court has looked to prior decisions for guidance and “endorsed” the Peterson II framework,

which judges in this District rely upon as a benchmark of baseline awards for victims of terrorist attacks

and their families, Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *47 (citing Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran

(“Peterson II”), 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 52 (D.D.C. 2007)). Under the Peterson II framework, spouses of

deceased victims receive $8 million, parents and children of deceased victims receive $5 million, and

siblings of deceased victims receive $2.5 million. Peterson II, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 52. This Court has

thus awarded qualifying plaintiffs the Peterson II baselines, granting upward and downward variances

to certain plaintiffs based on individualized circumstances. See, e.g., Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303,

at *9 (granting an upward adjustment where plaintiff experienced “particularly brutal suffering”); id.

at *10 (varying downward for awards to older family members, whose amount of time suffering “is

comparatively less than the suffering of other family-member victims”).

       Special Master Broom has considered the evidence presented by family-member plaintiffs and

recommended damages awards. Most of the recommendations are in line with the Peterson II baselines

but some reflect modest variances. The Court will adopt the recommendations of the Special Master

except as outlined below.

        A. Upward Variances for Exceptionally Severe Harm

       Because the Peterson II baseline awards “take into consideration the likelihood of serious

detrimental effects from these events on families,” Pennington v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civ. A. No.

19-796 (JEB), 2022 WL 168261, at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2022), vacated in part, 2022 WL 18814284

(D.D.C. May 3, 2022), courts normally only award upward departures for “an unusual circumstance

beyond the ordinary anguish that results from losing a family member,” Selig v. Islamic Republic of

Iran, 573 F. Supp. 3d 40, 66 (D.D.C. 2021). The Court now briefly describes a few plaintiffs who

experienced unusual circumstances warranting upward departures from the Peterson II baselines.

       Special Master Broom recommended awarding Mary Hilton (the wife of SFC Matthew Hilton)

$9.6 million in solatium damages due to her “diagnosed PTSD and her described periodic treatment
                                                7
therefor with the Veterans Administrat[ion].” Mot., Ex. 1 [ECF No. 231-1] (“Broom Rep.”) at *20–

21. The Court disagrees with Special Master Broom’s recommendation of a 20% upward variance.

Although Ms. Hilton experienced serious detrimental effects, courts “adhere[] closely to the Peterson

II framework in assessing solatium damages,” Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *48, and the Peterson

II framework considers such effects, see id. (declining to vary upward for spouse who suffered post-

traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”)). But the Court will grant a modest upward variance of 5%, due to

the unique circumstance surrounding her husband’s death. Ms. Hilton, like her husband, served in the

U.S. military, and deployed to Iraq in 2007. Pls.’ Decls. at 10. Ms. Hilton was one month away from

completing her deployment when SFC Hilton was deployed to Afghanistan. Id. SFC Hilton was killed

one month after she returned home; because of their deployment timing, Ms. Hilton last saw her

husband when she deployed in 2007. Id. Because of this unusual circumstance, the Court will award

Ms. Hilton $8.4 million in solatium damages.

       Special Master Broom also recommended awarding $9.6 million to Veronica Marie Adkinson,

the wife of SSG Vinson Adkinson. Broom Rep. at *244. Ms. Adkinson credibly describes her multiple

suicide attempts in the years following her husband’s death. Pls.’ Decls. at 572. The Court finds that

given her multiple suicide attempts, the impact on Ms. Adkinson appears to be greater than that

experienced by a spouse in a typical FSIA case. Accordingly, the Court will award Ms. Adkinson

$8.75 million in solatium damages.

       Special Master Broom recommended an award of $6.25 million to Songmi Kietzmann, who

was hospitalized after the death of her son, SPC Justin Horsley. See Broom Rep. at *346; Pls.’ Decls.

at 833. The Court finds that Ms. Kietzmann has experienced a greater-than-average impact, but that a

25% enhancement here strays too far from the Peterson II framework. The Court will award her $5.5

million in solatium damages, which constitutes a 10% enhancement.

       Special Master Broom recommended an upward variance of 20% for Ashley Michelle Harris,

the twin sister of PFC Devon Harris. Broom Rep. at *258–59; see Pls.’ Decls. at 638. The Court
                                             8
acknowledges that Ms. Harris has experienced unique pain due to the death of her twin brother—

particularly as it relates to their shared July 3 birthday—but finds that a 10% enhancement, rather than

a 20% enhancement, is appropriate. The Court will therefore award Ms. Harris $2.75 million in

solatium damages.

       Special Master Broom did not recommend an upward variance for Benjamin Gabriel Horsley,

Broom Rep. at *347, but the Court finds it appropriate to award him a 10% enhancement as well. Mr.

Horsley is SPC Horsley’s twin brother and faces greater hardships than typically expected for a

sibling’s death: he credibly describes that his “mother cries when she sees [his] face and hears [his]

voice, as they remind her” of SPC Horsley. Pls.’ Decls. at 842. Due to this circumstance, the Court

will award Mr. Horsley $2.75 million in solatium damages.

           B. Older Family Members

       The Court previously issued slight downward variances to older family-member plaintiffs

whose amount of time suffering with the loss of their loved one was “comparatively less than the

suffering of other family-member victims.” Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *51 (20% downward

variance for foster father who the Court estimated was “at least in his sixties” at the time of the attack);

see also Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *10 (20% downward variance for grandfather who was 69

years old at the time of grandson’s death). To maintain consistency among the awards of similarly

situated individuals, the Court will vary downward for plaintiffs in comparable situations. 4

       The Court therefore concludes that it is appropriate to provide a 20% reduction to Annette

Parrish, who was sixty-six years old when her grandson SSG Edward Bernard Smith died. 5 Broom

Rep. at *108. The Court will award Ms. Parrish $4 million in solatium damages. The Court will find

similarly for the parents of CPL Christopher Coffland. At the time of CPL Coffland’s death, his

       4
           Special Master Broom recommended the Peterson II baseline for each of the plaintiffs listed in Section III.B.
       5
           Ms. Parrish was SSG Smith’s functional equivalent of a mother.
                                                            9
mother, Antoinette Mary Francis Coffland, and his father, David Lee Coffland, were both seventy-five

years old. Broom Rep. at *133; Pls.’ Decls. at 292, 300. The Court will issue 20% downward

departures for each and will award $4 million in solatium damages to Ms. Coffland and Mr. Coffland.

        The Court will grant the same $4 million solatium awards to Michael Ramos Kisseloff and

Milagros D. Kisseloff, who were seventy-three years old and seventy years old at the time of their son

SGT Denis Kisseloff’s death. Broom Rep. at *172–73. And the Court will also award $4 million in

solatium damages to Tennyson Charles Harris, the father of PFC Harris, who was sixty-five years old

when his son died. Id. at *255–56. Each of these awards maintains consistency with the awards given

to similarly situated plaintiffs.

        In addition to issuing downward departures for older family-member plaintiffs in Cabrera II,

the Court made similar adjustments for the estates of family-member plaintiffs who suffered for shorter

periods of time. See id. at *10 (20% downward variance to estate of father who “passed away thirteen

years [after the attack], which is only slightly longer than the time that” older family-member plaintiffs

suffered). The Court will issue the same downward departure to the estate of Gladys Del Valle

Montanez. Although Ms. Del Valle Montanez was only forty-eight years old when her son, PFC Gil

Isai Morales Del Valle, was killed, she passed away in 2021, ten years after the attack. See Broom

Rep. at *284. The Court does not wish to understate the suffering Ms. Del Valle Montanez endured

after her son’s death, but because she passed away ten years later, the amount of time she suffered is

close to the amount of time the older family-member plaintiffs suffered. The Court will therefore

award her $4 million to maintain consistency among the awards.

         C. Individuals with Less Close Relationships to Direct Victims

        The Court previously held that “when determining solatium damages, it is necessary to consider

whether a family-member plaintiff’s relationship with a direct victim was further removed than

traditionally expected.” Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *10. Circumstances courts consider include

whether the family-member plaintiff lived with the victim, see id. (“Children who were living with
                                                10
their parents are likely to feel the sting of loss more harshly than children who were not.” (cleaned up)),

and the time they had to develop their relationship, see id. at *11 (“S.B. never got to meet him or

develop a relationship with him.” (cleaned up)). The Court now addresses certain plaintiffs whose

relationships with the victim were further removed than traditionally expected.

       1. Children of Direct Victims

       Special Master Broom recommended an upward variance of 25% for Brent Robinson, the

stepson of SFC Hilton; the Court will instead issue a 10% downward departure. SFC Hilton met Mr.

Robinson for the first time when Mr. Robinson was fifteen years old, became Mr. Robinson’s stepfather

when Mr. Robinson was eighteen years old, and was killed when Mr. Robinson was twenty-three years

old. Pls.’ Decls. at 17. Despite the limited number of years that they shared, Mr. Robinson credibly

describes a “strong relationship” with SFC Hilton and refers to him as a “father figure.” Id. at 18.

Special Master Broom recommended an enhancement for Mr. Robinson due to “continuing distress,”

including “a belief that he suffers from PTSD, that he has vivid dreams of his father’s death which

prevent him from sleeping, a continuing belief that the Taliban took and have transmitted his father’s

body parts and other intrusive reminders of his father’s violent death.” Broom Rep. at *21.

       But while the Court acknowledges the bond between Mr. Robinson and SFC Hilton, it is evident

that Mr. Robinson’s relationship with SFC Hilton was further removed than traditionally expected.

Even though the two appeared to have quickly bonded after meeting, SFC Hilton did not raise Mr.

Robinson. And in fact, despite considering SFC Hilton a father figure (which the Court does not

doubt), Mr. Robinson’s biological father was also present in his life. Pls.’ Decls. at 18. The Court will

only issue a downward departure of 10%, however, due to Mr. Robinson’s evident grief and the unusual

circumstance that Mr. Robinson believes his family has been receiving pieces of SFC Hilton’s body

parts over the years. Id. at 19. Accordingly, the Court will award Mr. Robinson $4.5 million in

solatium damages.

       The Court now discusses the minor children of SSG Rusty Christian. At the time of his death,
                                               11
SSG Christian’s son G.J.C. was eleven months old and his daughter T.M.C. was three years old. Broom

Rep. at *144. Special Master Broom recommended an award of $3 million for G.J.C., and $4 million

for T.M.C. Id. at *144, *146. The Court agrees with the awards Special Master Broom recommended

but details its reasoning for clarity.

           In its earlier Opinion, the Court applied a 40% downward variance for a three-month-old child

and a 30% downward variance for a three-year-old child. Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *11.

Consistent with that, the Court will vary downward by 40% for G.J.C. and will award him $3 million

in solatium damages. The Court will also vary downward by 30% for T.M.C., which would result in

a $3.5 million award. But the Court will then vary upwards for T.M.C., who has cut herself due to her

distress over the loss of her father. Pls.’ Decls. at 339. The Court will thus award her $4 million in

solatium damages.

           2. Parents of Direct Victims

           While the Court previously considered whether a child plaintiff’s relationship with a direct

victim parent was further removed than traditionally expected, the Court considers the same factors

when determining solatium awards for parent plaintiffs due to child victims. The Court will now

address plaintiffs for whom a downward departure is warranted due to their more attenuated parental

relationship with the direct victim. 6

           The Court will vary downward for the following stepparent plaintiffs who—while acting as the

“functional equivalent” of a parent—did not share as close a traditional child-parent relationship with

the victim. Tammy Renee Mays is SSG Chauncy Mays’s stepmother and views SSG Mays as the

“functional equivalent of a biological son.” Pls.’ Decls. at 680–81. Ms. Mays met SSG Mays when

he was approximately thirteen years old and SSG Mays lived with Ms. Mays and her husband for a

three-year period before his deployment. Id. at 680–81. While the Court acknowledges the seemingly

           6
               Special Master Broom recommended the baseline award of $5 million for each plaintiff listed in Subsection
III.C.2.
                                                              12
strong relationship between Ms. Mays and her stepson, it will vary downward by 30%, resulting in an

award to Ms. Mays of $3.5 million in solatium damages.

       The Court will issue greater departures for stepparents whose relationships appear further

removed. Jane Giselman Sparks, for example, considers her stepson SSG Orion Sparks “the functional

equivalent of [her] biological son,” Pls.’ Decls. at 893, and the victim’s brother Erik corroborates the

grief she suffered from SSG Sparks’s death, see id. at 877. But because Ms. Sparks only lived with

SSG Sparks approximately every other weekend for five years, id. at 893, the Court will vary

downward by 50% and will award Ms. Sparks $2.5 million in solatium damages. The Court reaches

the same conclusion for Jeanne M. Nichols, who became SPC Rob Nichols’s stepmother when he was

fifteen years old. See id. at 951. Although Ms. Nichols considers SPC Nichols the “functional

equivalent of her biological son,” SPC Nichols only lived with her and her husband on weekends and

in the summer. Id. at 950–51. The Court thus applies the same downward departure of 50% and will

award Ms. Nichols $2.5 million in solatium damages.

       The Court next considers the claims of Rose Ann Crossman, who became SPC Wade Slack’s

stepmother when SPC Slack was only eight years old. The record does not clearly reflect how long

SPC Slack lived with his stepmother or the status of their relationship. Nonetheless, the record contains

evidence that Ms. Crossman considered SPC Slack “the functional equivalent of [her] biological son,”

Pls.’ Decls. at 382, and that she “grieves to this day over losing a child she loved dearly,” id. at 406, so

the Court will award her $3 million in solatium damages.

       The Court will also vary downward for biological parents who had significantly less custody

of the direct victim. The Court first addresses David Reed, the father of SPC Jesse Reed. Mr. Reed

describes a very close relationship with his son, with whom he lived full time until his divorce when

SPC Reed was ten years old. Pls.’ Decls. at 533–34. SPC Reed then lived primarily with his mother,

though he saw Mr. Reed throughout the week and stayed with him on some weekends. Id. Due to the

diminished time together, the Court finds that a 10% departure is appropriate and will grant Mr. Reed
                                                  13
$4.5 million in solatium damages.

       Michael Christian, the father of SSG Christian, credibly describes a strong relationship with his

son, but he stopped permanently living with SSG Christian three months after his birth, at which point

SSG Christian only stayed with him every other weekend. Pls.’ Decls. at 355–56. Although Mr.

Christian remained present in his son’s life, the Court finds it proper to award Mr. Christian $3.5

million in solatium damages (a 30% departure). The Court will grant the same award to Clarence

Joseph Metcalf, PFC Michael Metcalf’s father. Mr. Metcalf credibly describes a strong relationship

with his son, but the record appears to reflect that PFC Metcalf lived solely with his mother between

the ages of two and twenty-one. Id. at 743–44, 751–52. The Court will therefore vary downward by

30% and award Mr. Metcalf $3.5 million in solatium damages. Finally, the Court will award Sorainya

Harris (PFC Harris’s mother) the same award of $3.5 million in solatium damages: although Ms. Harris

credibly describes a close relationship with her son, she seemingly never had custody of him. Id. at

596–97, 604–05.

       3. Spouses of Direct Victims

       The Court will briefly address one spouse for whom the Court finds a modest departure is

warranted. Diedre Marie Spencer was married to PFC Pridham for two days before he left to his post

in Germany, and they spent two months together in Germany prior to his deployment. Pls.’ Decls. at

509. Special Master Broom recommended granting the Peterson II baseline of $8 million and the Court

does not wish to understate the “strong relationship” Ms. Spencer shared with her husband. Id. at 508.

Given, however, the limited amount of time they shared between their wedding and PFC Pridham’s

death, the Court will issue a downward departure of 20% and will award Ms. Spencer $6.4 million in

solatium damages.

        D. Peterson II Baselines

       The Court now briefly describes three plaintiffs for whom Special Master Broom recommended

upward enhancements of 20%, but for whom the Court has decided to award the Peterson II baseline
                                             14
amounts. The Court addresses each plaintiff in turn. Amanda Granado, the daughter of SFC Alejandro

Granado III, suffers from PTSD, anxiety, and panic attacks as a result of her father’s death. See Broom

Rep. at *67. The Court expresses its sympathy for Ms. Granado’s continued suffering. But although

Ms. Granado credibly describes “serious detrimental effects,” the Peterson II framework takes into

consideration such effects. Pennington, 2022 WL 168261, at *3. Accordingly, the Court finds that a

baseline award of $5 million in solatium damages aligns with the awards given to similarly situated

plaintiffs.

        Shannon Fenton, the sister of SGT Joshua Rimer, dropped out of college and postponed her

wedding after her brother was killed. See Broom Rep. at *55–56. The Court notes that the record does

not make clear whether Ms. Fenton later returned to college. The record is clear, however, that Ms.

Fenton did not permanently cancel her wedding, but merely postponed it. See Pls.’ Decls. at 88. And

even if Ms. Fenton never returned to college, she has not presented circumstances that make her

situation unique compared to other family-member plaintiffs. The Court will thus award her $2.5

million in solatium damages.

        Melissa A. Pucino, the sister of SSG Matthew Pucino, has suffered “evident continuing

emotional distress,” since the death of her brother. Broom Rep. at *413. The Court acknowledges Ms.

Pucino’s deep suffering, but her emotional distress is the type of “serious detrimental effects” the

Peterson II framework considers. Pennington, 2022 WL 168261, at *3. Because she has not

demonstrated “an unusual circumstance beyond the ordinary anguish that results from losing a family

member,” Selig, 573 F. Supp. 3d at 66, granting a 20% enhancement would not maintain consistency

among the awards. The Court will instead award her $2.5 million in solatium damages.

        The Court now addresses two plaintiffs for whom Special Master Broom considered

recommending an upward variance, but ultimately concluded against such recommendation. The Court

agrees with Special Master Broom’s recommendations not to grant a 20% upward enhancement for

plaintiffs Samantha Shervon Williams and Zachary Douglas Sparks. Samantha Shervon Williams is
                                              15
the sister of PFC Clarence Williams III, who was killed in 2012. Ms. Williams suffers from a mental

disability and now “struggles with confusion over [PFC Williams]’s absence.” Pls.’ Decls. at 795. But

without more evidence in the record “of her current circumstances or likeliness of future needs [with

which] to differentiate the impact of this FSIA case [from] others,” Broom Rep. at *323, the Court will

only award Ms. Williams the Peterson II baseline of $2.5 million in solatium damages.

       Finally, Special Master Broom considered granting a 20% enhancement to Zachary Douglas

Sparks, the brother of SSG Sparks, given Sparks’s credible description of the impacts of his brother’s

death, which included becoming homeless. Broom Rep. at *362. But the Court agrees that the “record

is not specific enough” to differentiate his needs from those of other plaintiffs, id., and concludes that

Sparks has not presented the type of unusual circumstance that warrants an enhancement from the

baseline award. The Court will thus award Mr. Sparks $2.5 million in solatium damages.

                                            *         *        *

       In sum, the Court adopts the recommendations of Special Master Broom, with the only

deviations reflected above.

V.     Prejudgment Interest

       The Court previously concluded that “an award of prejudgment interest is appropriate” in this

case. Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *55; Cabrera II, 2023 WL 3496303, at *12. The Court

calculated the bellwether plaintiffs’ “interest amount by following the D.C. Circuit’s recommendation

in Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 84 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1996),” Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at

*55, and will use the same methodology here. The prejudgment interest amounts for these associated

plaintiffs are reflected in the Appendix table.

                                                  Conclusion

       For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that all but one of the plaintiffs considered by

Special Master Broom has standing to bring claims under the private right of action in 28 U.S.C. §

1605A(c). The Court will dismiss A.M.P.’s claims because she lacks standing as an after-born plaintiff.
                                                16
The Court also largely adopts the special master’s recommendations for compensatory damages to each

eligible plaintiff, with the handful of modifications noted herein, and it will award prejudgment interest

to each plaintiff as reflected in the attached Appendix. A separate Order specifying each plaintiff’s

award will be issued on this date.

                                                                                     /s/
                                                                             John D. Bates
                                                                      United States District Judge

Dated: February 29, 2024

                                                   17
                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AUGUST CABRERA, et al.,

                         Plaintiffs,

                 v.                                              Civil Action No. 19-3835 (JDB)

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,

                         Defendant.

MARK ZAMBON, et al.,

                         Plaintiffs,

                 v.

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,                                        Civil Action No. 18-2065 (JDB)

                         Defendant.

                                                    APPENDIX

        This appendix includes the prejudgment interest multipliers calculated by the Court for the

associated plaintiffs and a table specifying each plaintiffs’ award before and after the addition of

prejudgment interest. As it did previously in Cabrera I and Cabrera II, the Court will use the Federal

Reserve’s data for the average annual prime rate in each year from the date of the respective attacks

through February 29, 2024. 1 Using the prime rates for the years from the date of the attack, and

discounting for the percentage of the year elapsed at the time of each attack, yields the following

multipliers: 2

        1
          This data is available on the Federal Reserve’s website. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., Data
Download Program, https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Download.aspx?rel=H15&series (last accessed
February 7, 2024).
        2
           Specifically, the Court calculated these multipliers—using SFC Johnny Walls as an example—as follows. First,
the Court multiplied $1.00 by the prime rate in 2007 (8.05%); discounted that amount to reflect that approximately 16.2%
of the year remained after November 2, 2007; and added that amount to $1.00, for a result of $1.013093. The Court then
                                                          18
 Associated Direct Victims                 Attack Date                              Multiplier
 Walls                                     November 2, 2007                         1.955379
 Hilton; Palmateer                         June 26, 2008                            1.884794
 Studer                                    August 22, 2008                          1.870234
 Hernandez; Parsons                        January 9, 2009                          1.835344
 Rimer                                     July 22, 2009                            1.804615
 Granado                                   August 2, 2009                           1.802873
 Evans                                     August 7, 2009                           1.802080
 Allen; Cox                                September 12, 2009                       1.796379
 Smith                                     September 24, 2009                       1.794477
 Adams                                     October 1, 2009                          1.793369
 Coffland                                  November 13, 2009                        1.786557
 Pucino                                    November 23, 2009                        1.784973
 Christian                                 January 28, 2010                         1.774659
 Slack                                     May 6, 2010                              1.759624
 Kisseloff                                 May 14, 2010                             1.758397
 Rodriguez                                 June 11, 2010                            1.754101
 Madden                                    June 23, 2010                            1.752260
 Pridham                                   July 6, 2010                             1.750266
 Reed                                      July 14, 2010                            1.749039
 Bennedsen                                 July 18, 2010                            1.748425
 Adkinson; Alcaraz                         August 31, 2010                          1.741674
 Harris                                    November 27, 2010                        1.728174
 Mays                                      February 28, 2011                        1.714191
 Del Valle                                 August 3, 2011                           1.691012
 Siercks                                   September 27, 2011                       1.682840
 Metcalf                                   April 22, 2012                           1.652508
 Stambaugh; Williams                       July 8, 2012                             1.641457
 Ristau                                    July 13, 2012                            1.640739
 Horsley                                   July 22, 2012                            1.639447
 Gollnitz; Sparks                          September 26, 2012                       1.629975
 Schad                                     March 11, 2013                           1.606442
 Smedinghoff                               April 6, 2013                            1.602818
 Nichols; Welch                            July 23, 2013                            1.587765

         Applying those multipliers, the Court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to the following

amounts as solatium or pain-and-suffering damages, plus prejudgment interest:

took that amount and multiplied it by the prime rate in 2008 (5.09%) and combined that amount with $1.013093, for a result
of $1.064659. The Court continued this iterative process through February 29, 2024, resulting in a total multiplier of
1.955379. Because the attacks relevant to the associated plaintiffs were committed on thirty-three different dates, the Court
repeated this process for each attack date. To approximate the 2024 prime rate, the Court averaged the prime rates for the
past six years—approximately 5.06%—and again discounted the interest to reflect that only a portion of the year has elapsed
as of February 29, 2024. See Cabrera I, 2022 WL 2817730, at *55 n.46 (applying same methodology).
                                                            19
                                 Pain and Suffering or   Compensatory Damages Plus
           Plaintiff
                                  Solatium Damages          Prejudgment Interest
       Harvey Lane Walls               $2,500,000                $4,888,448
           Mary Hilton                 $8,400,000               $15,832,270
        Brent C. Robinson              $4,500,000                $8,481,573
          Jeanine Hilton               $2,500,000                $4,711,985
Christopher Alexander Palmateer        $2,500,000                $4,711,985
     Marjorie Elizabeth Vail           $2,500,000                $4,711,985
      Crystal Dawn DeLeo               $2,500,000                $4,675,585
        Jessie Hernandez               $5,000,000                $9,176,720
       Cathy Ann Parsons               $5,000,000                $9,176,720
    Garland Richard Parsons            $5,000,000                $9,176,720
        Donna Jean Rimer               $5,000,000                $9,023,075
      James Howard Rimer               $5,000,000                $9,023,075
    Shannon Danielle Fenton            $2,500,000                $4,511,538
  Alejandro Olan Granado IV            $5,000,000                $9,014,365
     Hasson Ponce Granado              $5,000,000                $9,014,365
  Amanda Christine Granado             $5,000,000                $9,014,365
      Larissa Ann Barnhart             $2,500,000                $4,505,200
          Brittany Evans               $2,500,000                $4,505,200
      Crystal Nicole Evans             $2,500,000                $4,505,200
   Jonathan Dewayne Rogers             $2,500,000                $4,505,200
     Jerry Randall Evans Sr.           $5,000,000                $9,010,400
       Amy Lynette Allen               $8,000,000               $14,371,032
       Daniel Bruce Allen              $5,000,000                $8,981,895
      Rama Goodrich Allen              $2,500,000                $4,490,948
           Kim B. Cox                  $5,000,000                $8,981,895
          Sharon J. Cox                $5,000,000                $8,981,895
         Shannon Butler                $2,500,000                $4,490,948
           Jamie Smith                 $8,000,000               $14,355,816
        DeAnndrea Luney                $5,000,000                $8,972,385
  Deiontay Laundreek Welch             $5,000,000                $8,972,385
      Craig Anthony Smith              $2,500,000                $4,486,193
      Thelma Latrice Smith             $2,500,000                $4,486,193
        Steven Flowers Jr.             $2,500,000                $4,486,193
         Annette Parrish               $4,000,000                $7,177,908
          Jalane Adams                 $5,000,000                $8,966,845
           Peter Adams                 $5,000,000                $8,966,845
         Amanda Boone                  $2,500,000                $4,483,423
Antoinette Mary Francis Coffland       $4,000,000                $7,146,228
     David Lee Coffland Sr.            $4,000,000                $7,146,228
                                           20
                           Pain and Suffering or   Compensatory Damages Plus
       Plaintiff
                            Solatium Damages          Prejudgment Interest
   Laurie Ann Bartlett           $2,500,000                $4,466,393
 Karen Ann Bresnahan             $2,500,000                $4,466,393
   Amber Jean Rogers             $8,000,000               $14,197,272
          G.J.C.                 $3,000,000                $5,323,977
         T.M.C.                  $4,000,000                $7,098,636
       Donna Ball                $5,000,000                $8,873,295
    Michael Christian            $3,500,000                $6,211,307
  James Franklin Ball            $4,000,000                $7,098,636
Michael Aaron Christian          $3,500,000                $6,211,307
  Rose Ann Crossman              $3,000,000                $5,278,872
 Andrew Forester Slack           $2,500,000                $4,399,060
   Jesse Robert Slack            $2,500,000                $4,399,060
 Jonathan Hunter Slack           $2,500,000                $4,399,060
  Lauren Rachel Slack            $2,500,000                $4,399,060
   Jessica Jean Cook             $2,500,000                $4,399,060
Aleksandr Cade Kisseloff         $5,000,000                $8,791,985
Michael Ramos Kisseloff          $4,000,000                $7,033,588
 Milagros D. Kisseloff           $4,000,000                $7,033,588
    Leslie Rodriguez             $8,000,000               $14,032,808
     Raven George                $5,000,000                $8,770,505
   Martin E. Madden              $5,000,000                $8,761,300
   Pamela J. Madden              $5,000,000                $8,761,300
  Lindsey R. Madden              $2,500,000                $4,380,650
   Martin P. Madden              $2,500,000                $4,380,650
 Diedre Marie Spencer            $6,400,000               $11,201,702
    Heather L. Reed              $8,000,000               $13,992,312
       David Reed                $4,500,000                $7,870,676
    Tracy Bennedsen              $5,000,000                $8,742,125
    Scott Bennedsen              $5,000,000                $8,742,125
 Jamie Johanna Coates            $2,500,000                $4,371,063
Veronica Marie Adkinson          $8,750,000               $15,239,648
      Alma Murphy                $5,000,000                $8,708,370
      Paul Murphy                $5,000,000                $8,708,370
Tennyson Charles Harris          $4,000,000                $6,912,696
     Sorainya Harris             $3,500,000                $6,048,609
   Felicia Ann Harris            $5,000,000                $8,640,870
     Tiffany Dotson              $2,500,000                $4,320,435
    David L. Parker              $2,500,000                $4,320,435
 Ashley Michelle Harris          $2,750,000                $4,752,479
                                     21
                                Pain and Suffering or   Compensatory Damages Plus
         Plaintiff
                                 Solatium Damages          Prejudgment Interest
       Michael Rufus II               $2,500,000                $4,320,435
       Stephanie Rufus                $2,500,000                $4,320,435
  Alyson Overman Rodgers              $5,000,000                $8,570,955
     Thomas Pierce Mays               $5,000,000                $8,570,955
     Tammy Renee Mays                 $3,500,000                $5,999,669
    Cody Cheyenne Mays                $2,500,000                $4,285,478
 Estate of Gladys Del Valle
           Montanez                  $4,000,000                 $6,764,048
         Renes Perez                 $5,000,000                 $8,455,060
Kiara Crystal Perez Del Valle        $2,500,000                 $4,227,530
    Georganne M. Siercks             $8,000,000                $13,462,720
         Gage Siercks                $6,000,000                $10,097,040
              G.S.                   $4,000,000                 $6,731,360
       Kimberly Metcalf              $5,000,000                 $8,262,540
  Clarence Joseph Metcalf            $3,500,000                 $5,783,778
   Mitchell L. Stambaugh             $5,000,000                 $8,207,285
  Talisa Shervon Williams            $5,000,000                 $8,207,285
    Clarence Williams Jr.            $5,000,000                 $8,207,285
    Abrill Renee Williams            $2,500,000                 $4,103,643
Samantha Shervon Williams            $2,500,000                 $4,103,643
         Randy Ristau                $5,000,000                 $8,203,695
        Suzanne Ristau               $5,000,000                 $8,203,695
     Christopher Powers              $2,500,000                 $4,101,848
         Halie Ristau                $2,500,000                 $4,101,848
      Songmi Kietzmann               $5,500,000                 $9,016,959
  Benjamin Gabriel Horsley           $2,750,000                 $4,508,479
    John Gregory Horsley             $2,500,000                 $4,098,618
    Kirk Andrew Gollnitz             $2,500,000                 $4,074,938
 Jan Marie Hurnblad Sparks           $5,000,000                 $8,149,875
        Erik Lee Sparks              $2,500,000                 $4,074,938
       Gary Lee Sparks               $5,000,000                 $8,149,875
   Jane Gieselman Sparks             $2,500,000                 $4,074,938
   Zachary Douglas Sparks            $2,500,000                 $4,074,938
       Colleen Whipple               $5,000,000                 $8,032,210
   Mary Beth Smedinghoff             $5,000,000                 $8,014,090
 Thomas John Smedinghoff             $5,000,000                 $8,014,090
    Mark T. Smedinghoff              $2,500,000                 $4,007,045
       Bruce K. Nichols              $5,000,000                 $7,938,825
      Jeanne M. Nichols              $2,500,000                 $3,969,413

                                          22
                           Pain and Suffering or   Compensatory Damages Plus
      Plaintiff
                            Solatium Damages          Prejudgment Interest
      M.G.N.                     $2,500,000                 $3,969,413
   Lorria Welch                  $5,000,000                 $7,938,825
    Barry Welch                  $5,000,000                 $7,938,825
  Zackary Welch                  $2,500,000                 $3,969,413
Kathryn Mary Pucino              $5,000,000                 $8,924,865
Albert W. Pucino Jr.             $5,000,000                 $8,924,865
  Lisa M. Haglof                 $2,500,000                 $4,462,433
 Melissa A. Pucino               $2,500,000                 $4,462,433

                                                                    /s/
                                                            John D. Bates
                                                     United States District Judge

Dated: February 29, 2024

                                     23