Stearns v. Stearns

1

SHIRLEY STEARNS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHIRLEY STEARNS, et al., Defendant.

No. 17-cv-131 (RCL)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

April 30, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the Special Master's fourth report and recommendations regarding damages in this case. ECF No. 87. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts each of the damages recommendations provided by the Special Master-with two exceptions. Additionally, the Court awards punitive damages in favor of plaintiffs.

I. BACKGROUND

This civil action arises from a series of attacks involving explosively formed penetrators (“EFPs”), a type of improvised explosive device (“IED”), that insurgents in Iraq used to injure or kill American servicemembers and a military contractor between 2004 and 2011.

Filed on January 19, 2017, the Complaint was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A by the surviving victims, the estates of the deceased victims, and their close family members seeking compensatory and punitive damages. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 22, 2018. ECF No. 14. Plaintiffs served defendant Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) through diplomatic channels on August 12, 2018. ECF No. 21. Following Iran s failure to respond, and upon affidavit by plaintiffs' counsel, the Clerk of Court entered default on October 15,2018. ECF No 23.

On December 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a memorandum of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (“PFFCL”) in support of their motion for default judgment as to Iran's liability for plaintiffs' injuries stemming from 58 of the attacks alleged in their Amended Complaint. PFFCL in Supp. of Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 35 at 2. Specifically, they asked this Court to: (1) “Court find Iran liable for the attacks at issue in this PFFCL”; (2) “based upon the evidence they presented in [Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 16-CV-232 (CKK) (D.D.C.)]” as well as additional evidence that” plaintiffs submitted here. Id.

On October 3, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 47, holding that Iran materially supported the attacks, that Iran proximately caused plaintiffs' injuries through its material support, and that Iran did so with an intent to cause severe emotional distress. See also Stearns v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 633 F.Supp.3d 284 (D.D.C. 2022). Accordingly, the Court issued a Finding of Liability as to injuries sustained by 229 plaintiffs. ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs moved to appoint a special master. ECF No. 50. This Court granted plaintiffs'motion on February 21, 2023, appointing Stephen A. Salzburg to serve as Special Master. ECF No. 52. Plaintiffs then moved for orders to seal the Special Master's reports and to allow the Special Master to submit periodic reports. ECF Nos. 54 & 55. The Court granted plaintiffs' motions. ECF No. 57 & 58.

On November 17, 2023, the Special Master filed his fourth report and recommendations with the Court regarding solatium and economic damages alleged by 18 plaintiffs. ECF No 87. Plaintiffs submitted their proposed redactions to the Special Master's report. ECF No. 88 (“4th Special Master Rep.”). The parties have not filed any objections to the reports and recommendations within the statutorily allotted time. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 (f)(2) (allowing a party to “file objections to-or a motion to adopt or modify-the master's order, report, or recommendations no later than 21 days after a copy is served”).

Having established liability, this Court examines the Special Master's recommended damages awards for the plaintiffs identified in his fourth report.

II. DISCUSSION

Damages available under the FSIA “include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). To demonstrate entitlement to damages, “a default winner must prove damages ‘in the same manner and to the same extent' as any other default winner.” Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680, 683-84 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Alameda v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 622 F.2d 1044, 1048 (1st Cir. 1980)). See also H.R. REP. No. 94-1487, at 26 (1976) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) establishes “the same requirement applicable to default judgments against the U.S. Government under rule 55(e), F[ed]. R. Civ. P.”). For future damages, a plaintiff must demonstrate entitlement to a “reasonable certainty or a preponderance of the evidence,” and prove damages by a “reasonable estimate.” Hill, 328 F.3d at 684. For past losses, a plaintiff must “prove the fact of injury with reasonable certainty” yet only “reasonably prove” the amount of damages. Id. at 684 (quoting Samaritan Inns, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 114 F.3d 1227, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).

Before the Court assesses the Special Master's recommendations as to damages, it must exclude two plaintiffs' claims from consideration at this time. First, the Court will not assess the claims of Nichole Garrigus. The Court held Iran liable to Ms. Garrigus and several other plaintiffs on September 27, 2022. ECF No. 44. However, the Court has since learned-through declarations that plaintiffs have submitted to the Special Master-that Ms. Garrigus died on July 19, 2020, during the pendency of litigation. See 4th Special Master Rep. 53 n. 343. The Court cannot award damages to a deceased litigant, as “[a] deceased individual cannot serve as the real party in interest in a civil action.” Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 947 F.Supp.2d 48, 54 n.2 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a)(1)). Moreover, the Court cannot, at this junction, adopt the Special Master's recommended damages award to the Estate of Nichole Garrigus because the Estate of Nichole Garrigus is not a plaintiff in this case. Instead, the Court will order plaintiffs to file a motion for substitution within 60 days of the Order accompanying this Memorandum Opinion. Assuming plaintiffs move to substitute an estate, plaintiffs will be further ordered to provide the court with the applicable state law to assess that estate's standing to bring suit. See Anderson v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 753 F.Supp.2d 68, 82 (D.D.C. 2010) (explaining that whether estate-plaintiffs have standing to pursue claims for emotional injuries that the decedents suffered while alive is a question governed by “the law of the state which also governs the creation of the estate.”).

Second, the Court will not assess Jennifer Roose's claims for solatium damages. In this case, jurisdiction under the FSIA's terrorism exception requires an “extrajudicial killing.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1); Stearns, 633 F.Supp.3d at 344-49. However, Ms. Roose's injuries appear to arise from an attack in which no one was killed. 4th Special Master Rep. 19-27. Thus, as this Court recently ordered, plaintiffs must explain why this Court should not vacate it's finding of liability as to Ms. Roose and dismiss her claims for lack of jurisdiction. See ECF No. 100; Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 94 F.4th 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2024). The Court will reserve ruling on Ms. Roose's claims until plaintiffs' time to respond to the Court's Order has elapsed. See ECF No. 100. With these exceptions set aside, plaintiffs have amply demonstrated that Iran's commission of acts of completed extrajudicial killings and provision of material support and resources for such killings was reasonably certain to-and, indeed, was intended to injure plaintiffs. See Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F.Supp.2d 25, 37 (D.D.C. 2007).

The Court has received and reviewed the recommendations of the Special Master and ADOPTS, without discussion, all facts found and recommendations made that conform to the well-established solatium-damages framework articulated below. See id. at 51-53; Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.Supp.2d 52, 83-87 (D.D.C. 2010). The Court will, however, discuss the instances where the Special Master has recommended that economic damages be granted. The Court will also discuss why an award of punitive damages is appropriate.

A. Solatium Damages

Solatium damages are designed “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.” Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 78 F.Supp.3d 379, 402-03 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F.Supp.2d 16, 25 (D.D.C. 2011)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

In Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, this Court surveyed damages awarded to the family members of the deceased terrorism victims and determined that, based on averages, that “[s]pouses typically receive greater damage awards than parents [or children], who, in turn, typically receive greater awards than siblings.” 466 F.Supp.2d 229, 269 (D.D.C. 2006). This Court then established a framework whereby spouses of deceased victims receive approximately $8 million, parents receive $5 million, and siblings receive $2.5 million. Id. See also Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 85 (observing that courts have “adopted the framework set forth in Heiser as ‘an appropriate measure of damages for the family members of victims'”) (quoting Peterson, 515 F.Supp.2d at 51). Step-family members may similarly receive solatium damages awards consistent with the Heiser framework when they “were members of the victim's household” such that they were “viewed as the functional equivalents of family members.” See Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325, 337 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

When applying this framework, this Court is mindful that “[t]hese numbers ... are not set in stone,” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F.Supp.2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010), and that upward...