Rimkus v. the Islamic Republic of Iran

• Decision Date: 16 November 2010
• Docket Number: No. 08–cv–1615 (RCL).,08–cv–1615 (RCL).
• Parties: Joseph J. RIMKUS, Plaintiff,v.The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

750 F.Supp.2d 163

Joseph J. RIMKUS, Plaintiff,

v.The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants.

No. 08–cv–1615 (RCL).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. 16, 2010.

Peter C. Grenier, Douglas C. Melcher, Bode & Grenier, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of the horrific June 25, 1996 bombing at Khobar Towers, a military residence at the United States military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion, which reduced much of Building 131 of the residential complex to rubble, killed nineteen U.S. Air Force personnel, including Airman First Class Joseph Edward Rimkus, and injured hundreds of others. In June 2006, plaintiff Joseph J. Rimkus, the father of the deceased Airman Rimkus, filed suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., alleging that defendants Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”), and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”) had provided material support and assistance to Saudi Hezbollah, the terrorist organization responsible for the bombing of Khobar Towers, and thus were subject to suit under the FSIA's “state-sponsored terrorism” exception, which at the time was codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). This Court entered judgment against all three defendants on August 26, 2008, concluding that they “were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, and that Saudi Hezbollah carried out the attack under their direction.” Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 575 F.Supp.2d 181, 189 (D.D.C.2008) (Lamberth, J.) (“ Rimkus I ”). The Court then awarded Mr. Rimkus $5 million in compensatory damages for pain and suffering and loss of solatium. Id. at 198. The Court denied, however, punitive damages, holding that such an award was unavailable under either § 1605(a)(7) or Pub. L. 104–208, § 589, 110 (1996), 110 Stat. 3009–1, 3007–172 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605 note) (the “Flatow Amendment”). Rimkus I, 575 F.Supp.2d at 199–200.

While this original suit was pending before the Court, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (“NDAA”), which, among other things, eliminated the prior state-sponsored terrorism exception by repealing 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), and created a new exception codified in its own provision at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. Pub. L. No. 110–181, § 1083, 122 Stat. 3, 338–44 (2008). While this new section effected a significant number of changes in the law, most importantly for these purposes the new exception provides for the recovery of punitive damages in suits based on acts of terrorism. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Having been denied such recovery in Rimkus I, plaintiff now brings suit under § 1605A seeking an assessment of punitive damages against Iran, MOIS and IRGC. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that plaintiff has established a proper basis for such punitive measures, and awards damages as appropriate.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORYA. Prior Khobar Towers Litigation

While the history of this particular action is relatively brief, the history of litigation stemming from the bombing of Khobar Towers—much of which is directly related to this action—is extensive. In the early years of this decade, several different representatives and estates of a number of the individuals either killed or injured in the attack filed suit under § 1605(a)(7), seeking to hold Iran, MOIS and IRGC liable for the attack. After several consolidations, two primary cases emerged concerning the bombing. The first involved Paul Blais, a search and rescue coordinator enlisted in the Air Force who was severely injured in the explosion, and who—along with his mother and step-father—sought to recover damages stemming from those injuries. Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.Supp.2d 40, 46–51 (D.D.C.2006). The second suit involved representatives and estates for 17 of the 19 Air Force personnel killed in the attack on the Towers. Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp.2d 229, 248 (D.D.C.2006) (“ Heiser I ”). Included among the plaintiffs in that case were the estate of Airman Rimkus, his mother and his siblings. Id. at 295–99.

Over years of litigation, the plaintiffs in both Blais and Heiser presented substantial evidence to the Court concerning the Khobar Towers bombing. In Blais, the plaintiffs submitted evidence concerning the investigations and opinions of Louis Freeh and Dale Watson. Mr. Freeh was the FBI Director at the time of the bombing, and under his direction the FBI “conducted a massive and thorough investigation of the attack, using over 250 agents.” Blais, 459 F.Supp.2d at 48. Mr. Watson was the Deputy Counterterrorism Chief of the FBI in 1996, and subsequent to the attack he became the Section Chief for all international terrorism at the Bureau. He was responsible “for day to day oversight of the FBI investigation” and has given sworn testimony concerning the results of the investigation. Id. In addition, Dr. Bruce Tefft, “one of the founding members of the CIA's counterterrorism bureau” and expert consultant on terrorism-related issues, was qualified as an expert and gave extensive testimony concerning the defendants' involvement in terrorist activities. Id. at 48–49. In Heiser, the evidence was even more extensive than in Blais, and was presented to a magistrate judge over the course of more than two weeks. Heiser I, 466 F.Supp.2d at 250. Though relying on much of the same evidence as the plaintiffs in Blais, the Heiser plaintiffs were able to present live testimony from Mr. Freeh, as well as additional statements from Mr. Watson and Dr. Tefft. Id. at 253–54. In addition, the Heiser plaintiffs presented Dr. Patrick Clawson, a participant in a Commission investigating the Khobar Towers attack and an expert on Iranian support for terrorism. Id. at 253. The Court qualified Dr. Clawson as an expert, and received his testimony concerning “(1) the government of Iran; (2) Iran's sponsorship of terrorism; and (3) the Iranian economy.” Id.

Based on all of the above evidence, as well as additional documentary and testimonial submissions, the Court in both Blais and Heiser concluded that “the Khobar Towers bombing was planned, funded, and sponsored by senior leadership in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran; the IRGC had the responsibility of working with Saudi Hizbollah ¹ to execute the plan, and the MOIS participated in the planning and funding of the attack.” Id. at 265; Blais, 459 F.Supp.2d at 48 (quoting with approval Dr. Tefft's conclusion that defendants “were responsible for planning and supporting the attack on the Khobar Towers”). The Court then determined and awarded the proper amounts of compensatory damages,² while denying punitive damages in both cases. Heiser I, 466 F.Supp.2d at 269–70; ³ Blais, 459 F. supp.2d at 58–61.

B. Rimkus I

Shortly before final judgment in Blais and Heiser, plaintiff Joseph J. Rimkus, father of the deceased Airman Rimkus, initiated a separate suit against defendants by filing a Complaint seeking “damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress ... solatium ... and punitive damages.” Rimkus I, 575 F.Supp.2d at 185. Following service of the Complaint and Summons, he moved the Court for default judgment, and requested that the Court take judicial notice of the earlier Blais and Heiser opinions—which had each been issued shortly after Mr. Rimkus filed suit. Id. at 186. Mr. Rimkus also moved into evidence substantial testimony from both proceedings. Id. at 186 n. 2. The Court also held an evidentiary hearing, at which time Mr. Rimkus provided testimony about his relationship with his son, and the impact that Airman Rimkus' death had on him. Id. at 189–192.

Following this evidentiary hearing, but before the Court's opinion concerning liability and damages, Congress enacted the NDAA. That Act repealed the earlier state—sponsored terrorism exception—which formed the basis of Mr. Rimkus' suit-and replaced the exception with an entirely new and separate provision, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. Unlike its predecessor, which required plaintiffs in FSIA cases to articulate causes of action under state tort law, see In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F.Supp.2d 31, 46 (D.D.C.2009) (“ In re Terrorism Litig.”) (noting that plaintiffs in this period used § 1605(a)(7) “as a ‘pass-through’ to causes of action found in state tort law”), § 1605A sets forth a federal cause of action. Id. And unlike the Flatow Amendment, which had been effectively eliminated as an independent basis for punitive damage awards in FSIA cases by the D.C. Circuit's decision in Cicippio–Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C.Cir.2004), § 1605A provides that FSIA plaintiffs may recover punitive damages against foreign states. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c).

Principles of law concerning the retroactive application of statutes would generally have barred Mr. Rimkus from pursuing an action under the new state-sponsored terrorism exception. However, in passing the NDAA Congress gave FSIA plaintiffs in cases pending before the courts—such as Mr. Rimkus—an opportunity to have the newly-enacted provision retroactively applied to their cases. Specifically, the Act declares that

[w]ith respect to any action that (i) was brought under section 1605(a)(7) ... or [the Flatow Amendment] before the date of enactment of this Act, (ii) relied upon either such provision as creating a cause of action, (iii) has been adversely affected on the grounds that either or both of these provisions fail to create a cause of action ... and (iv) ... is before the courts in any form ... that action shall ... on motion made by plaintiffs ... be given effect as if the action had originally been filed under section 1605A(c).

NDAA § 1083(c)(2). Mr. Rimkus, however, declined to pursue this course, and the Court proceeded under former § 1065(a)(7)...