Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran
| Decision Date | 07 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 01-2094 (RCL).,Civil Action No. 01-2684 (RCL). |
| Citation | 515 F.Supp.2d 25 |
| Parties | Deborah D. PETERSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of James C. Knipple (Dec.), et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Thomas Fortune Fay, Steven R. Perles, Perles Law Firm, P.C., Tuna Mecit, Law Offices of Fay & Perles, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Allen Louis Rothenberg, Philadelphia, PA, Anthony J. Laspada, Tampa, FL, Ferris Ridgely Bond, Jane Carol Norman, Bond & Norman, PLLC, Kay Maureen Clarke, Washington, DC, Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, VA, Robert Peter Feeney, Gaithersburg, MD, for Plaintiffs/Defendant.
These actions arise from the October 23, 1983, bombing of a United States Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in which 241 American servicemen operating under peacetime rules of engagement were murdered by a suicide bomber. This attack was regarded as the most deadly state-sponsored terrorist attack made against American citizens, until the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001.
The nearly one thousand plaintiffs in this consolidated action are many of the family members and estates of the 241 servicemen killed in the attack. Plaintiffs allege that the Islamic Republic of Iran ("Iran") and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security ("MOIS") are liable for damages from the attack because they provided material support and assistance to Hezbollah,1 the terrorist organization that orchestrated and carried out the bombing. Plaintiffs have relied upon causes of action founded upon provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7).
On March 17-18, 2003, this Court conducted a bench trial to determine the defendants' liability for their part in the perpetration of this attack. After reviewing the evidence presented by plaintiffs at trial, including testimony from lay and expert witnesses, this Court issued an opinion finding that the defendants were legally responsible for providing material financial and logistical support to help carry out this tragic attack on the 241 servicemen in Beirut in 1983. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F.Supp.2d 46, 61 (D.D.C.2003). In that opinion, this Court also found that the surviving family members have suffered and will continue to suffer mental anguish and loss of society. Id. Finally, this Court directed special masters to consider each claim brought by plaintiffs, and indicated that it would make a determination on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages for each claim after the Court received reports from the special masters.2 The Court reaches this determination on the issue of damages in this opinion. The Court reviews the determinations made by the special masters de novo. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(g)(3).
In order to ensure that the Court determines the appropriate amount of damages available to each plaintiff under the law, it must first ensure that each plaintiff has a valid claim under state law. The FSIA does not itself provide a cause of action, but rather "acts as a `pass-through' to substantive causes of action against private individuals that may exist in federal, state or international law." Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.Supp.2d 40, 54 (D.D.C. Sept.29, 2006) (Lamberth, J.) (citing Dammarell v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civ. A. No. 01-2224, 2005 WL 756090, at *8-10, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5343, at *27-32 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2005) (Bates, J.)).
In order to determine the applicable state law to each action, the Court must look to the choice of law rules of the forum, in this case, the choice of law rules of the District of Columbia. See Blais, 459 F.Supp.2d at 54. Under District of Columbia choice of law rules, courts employ a modified government interest analysis under which they "evaluate the governmental policies underlying the applicable laws and determine which jurisdiction's policy would be most advanced by having its law applied to the facts of the case under review." Hercules & Co. v. Shama Rest. Corp., 566 A.2d 31, 41 (D.C.1989) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Application of this governmental interest test generally points to the law of plaintiffs domicile as having the greatest interest in providing redress to its citizens. Accordingly, the validity of each of the plaintiffs' claims shall be determined by the state in which they were domiciled at the time of the attack.
In this action, three types of claims have been sought. First, the personal representatives and estates of the servicemen killed in the attack have brought claims for wrongful death, in which the plaintiffs and beneficiaries seek compensation in the form of the present value of the decedent's lost wages and earnings that he would have earned but for his untimely death. Second, the surviving servicemen have brought claims for battery against the defendants. Third, the family members of both the deceased and surviving servicemen have brought claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") against the defendants for their part in materially bringing about the attack. The Court will assess the relative merits of each of the claims separately.
Wrongful death claims were brought by the personal representatives and estates of the following deceased servicemen:
Terry Abbott, John Robert Allman, Ronny Kent Bates, James Baynard, Jess W. Beamon, Alvin Burton Belmer, Richard D. Blankenship, John W. Blocker, Joseph John Boccia Jr., Leon Bohannon, John Bonk Jr., Jeffrey James Boulos, John Norman Boyett, William Burley, Paul Callahan, Mecot Camara, Bradley Campus, Johnnie Ceaser, Robert Allen Conley, Charles Dennis Cook, Johnny Len Copeland, David Cosner, Kevin Coulman, Rick Crudale, Russell Cyzick, Michael Devlin, Nathaniel Dorsey, Frederick Douglass, Timothy Dunnigan, Bryan Earle, Danny R. Estes, Richard Andrew Fluegel, Michael D. Fulcher, Sean Gallagher, George Gangur, Randall Garcia, Harold Ghumm, Timothy Giblin, Michael Gorchinski, Richard Gordon, Davin M. Green, Thomas Hairston, Michael Haskell, Mark Anthony Helms, Stanley G. Hester, Donald Wayne Hildreth, Richard Holberton, Dr. John Hudson, Maurice Edward Hukill, Edward Iacovino Jr., Paul Innocenzi III, James Jackowski, Jeffrey Wilbur James, Nathaniel Walter Jenkins, Edward Anthony Johnston, Stephen Jones, Thomas Adrian Julian, Thomas Keown, Daniel Kluck, James C. Knipple, Freas H. Kreischer III, Keith Laise, James Langon IV, Michael Scott LaRiviere, Steven LaRiviere, Richard Lemnah, Joseph Raymond ("Joel") Livingston III, Paul D. Lyon Jr., John Macroglou, Samuel Maitland Jr., Charlie Robert Martin, David Massa, John McCall, James E. McDonough, Timothy R. McMahon, Richard Menkins II, Ronald Meurer, Joseph Peter Milano, Joseph Moore, Harry Douglas Myers, David Nairn, John Arne Olson, Joseph Albert Owens, Connie Ray Page, Ulysses Gregory Parker, John L. Pearson, Thomas S. Perron, John Arthur Phillips Jr., William Ray Pollard, Victor Mark Prevatt, James Price, Patrick Kerry Prindeville, Diomedes J. Quirante, Warren Richardson, Luis J. Rotondo, Michael Caleb Sauls, Charles Jeffrey Schnorf, Scott Lee Schultz, Peter Scialabba, Gary Randall Scott, Thomas Alan Shipp, Jerryl Shropshire, Larry H. Simpson Jr., Kirk Hall Smith, Thomas Gerard Smith, Vincent Smith, William Scott Sommerhof, Stephen Eugene Spencer, William Stelpflug, Horace Renardo ("Ricky") Stephens Jr., Craig Stockton, Jeffrey Stokes, Eric D. Sturghill, Devon Sundar, Thomas Paul Thorstad, Stephen Tingley, Donald H. Vallone Jr., Eric Glenn Washington, Dwayne Wigglesworth, Rodney J. Williams, Scipio Williams Jr., Johnny Adam Williamson, William Ellis Winter, Donald Elberan Woollett, Craig Wyche, Jeffrey D. Young.3
Out of the 128 deceased servicemen, 123 were domiciled in North Carolina at the time of the attack.4 The servicemen who were not domiciled in North Carolina at the time of the attack were domiciled in California, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Vermont.5 This difference in domicile is of no moment, however, because the wrongful death statutes of each of the servicemen's respective states of domicile imposes liability on an actor when his "wrongful act, neglect, or default" causes a person's death, and had that person lived, he could have recovered damages from the actor. Cal Civ. Proc.Code § 377.60(a) (2007); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 28A-18-2(a) (2007); 12 Okl. St. Ann. § 1053 (2007); S.C.Code Ann. § 15-51-10 (2006); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 1491 (2007). Each statute provides for recovery of numerous categories of damages, including pecuniary loss in the form of the present monetary value of the decedent to the persons entitled to receive the damages recovered, expenses for care, treatment and hospitalization incident to the injury resulting in death; and reasonable funeral expenses. See Cal Civ. Proc. Code § 377.61 (2007); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 28A-18-2(b) (2007); 12 Okl. St. Ann. § 1053 (2007); S.C.Code Ann. § 15-51-20 (2006); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 1491 (2007). Additionally, North Carolina allows for the recovery of compensation for pain and suffering of the decedent. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 28A-18-2(b).6
Based upon the evidence presented to the special masters and the Court, each of the deceased servicemen has made out a valid claim for wrongful death under North Carolina law. Accordingly, those valid heirs and beneficiaries under North Carolina's intestate statute are entitled to share in the recovery of the damages awarded as a result...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Islamic Republic Of Iran
...Lamberth directed special masters to determine the amount of damages owed to each plaintiff. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Peterson II), 515 F.Supp.2d 25, 37 (D.D.C.2007). On September 7, 2007, he entered a default judgment for the plaintiffs in the total amount of $2,656,944,877. I......
-
Barry v. Islamic Republic of Iran
...of his or her life." O'Brien v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 853 F. Supp. 2d 44, 46 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 52 n.26 (D.D.C. 2007), abrogation on other grounds recognized in Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 947 F. Supp. 2d 48, 65 (D......
-
Owens v. Republic Sudan
...recoveries to vary among otherwise similarly situated claimants, denying some any recovery whatsoever. See Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 515 F.Supp.2d 25, 44-45 (D.D.C. 2007) (denying recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress to plaintiffs domiciled in Pennsylvania ......
-
Maupin v. Syrian Arab Republic
...is made between their right to recover damages and the rights of Micah, who is related by blood. See Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 515 F.Supp.2d 25, 52 (D.D.C. 2007) ("Siblings of half-blood to the servicemen in this case are presumed to recover as a full-blood sibling would.").As ......
-
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran: the Supreme Court's Textually Veiled Decision to Give State Terror Sponsors Immunity
...three-billion-dollar judgment and seeking attachment of the very same museum antiquities. See Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 60 (D.D.C. 2007). A tug-of-war battle ensued that butted the Iranian terror victims against one another-over who should ultimately hold own......