Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2010)

Courts in this district have held that victims injured in the attacks “may recover economic damages, which typically include lost wages (both past and future), benefits and retirement pay, and other out-of-pocket expenses.” Bluth, 203 F. Supp. 3d at 24; see Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85 (awarding damages to victims for “lost wages resulting from permanent and debilitating injuries suffered in the attack”); Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 885 F. Supp. 2d 78, 82 (D.D.C. 2012…

See Foreign Terrorist Organizations, U.S. Dep’t of State, https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist- 2 The Court may not take “judicial notice of the truth of findings and conclusions” from other cases “absent some particular indicia of indisputability.” Murphy v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 58 (D.D.C. 2010) (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

See Murphy, 740 F.Supp.2d at 78 (“In determining the appropriate award of damages for solatium, the Court may look to prior decisions awarding [pain and suffering] for intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as the decisions regarding solatium.”); Heiser, 466 F.Supp.2d at 269 (same); Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.Supp.2d 40, 58 (D.D.C.2006) (same).

First, Iran is liable to Boothe, Bland, and Murtha under a theory of battery, which requires a showing that Iran (1) “acted ‘intending to cause a harmful contact with . . . or an imminent apprehension of such contact’ by, those attacked” and (2) “‘a harmful contact with’ those attacked ‘directly or indirectly resulted.’” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 74 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13).

Courts may “award greater amounts in cases ‘with aggravating circumstances ...°” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F. Supp. 2d 90, 108 (D.D.C. 2006)).

Id.; Murphy, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 74 ("Acts of terrorism are by their very definition extreme and outrageous and intended to cause the highest degree of emotional distress") (quoting Belkin, 667 F. Supp. 2d at 22).

This damages framework “has strong precedential support” in this circuit, but the numbers “are not set in stone,” such that a court “may award greater amounts in cases ‘with aggravating circumstances.’” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F. Supp. 2d 90, 108 (D.D.C. 2006)).

As “the FSIA does not require this Court to relitigate issues that have already been settled in previous decisions,” the court can “review evidence considered in an opinion that is judicially noticed, without necessitating the re- presentment of such evidence.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 59 (D.D.C. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

That said, the framework is “not set in stone.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010).

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 deviations may be warranted in the face of “evidence establishing an especially close relationship between the plaintiff and decedent, particularly in comparison to the normal interactions to be expected given the familial relationship” or with “medical proof of severe pain, grief or s…

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 deviations may be warranted in the face of “evidence establishing an especially close relationship between the plaintiff and decedent, particularly in comparison to the normal interactions to be expected given the familial relationship” or with “medical proof of severe pain, grief or s…

Id. at 82 (“Punitive damages are not intended to compensate plaintiffs.

Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 81 (D.D.C. 2010).

Those findings are sufficient to satisfy the scope of office requirement.” (citation omitted)); Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Murphy I), 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 71 (D.D.C. 2010) (“Iran and [the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security], through their officials and employees, provided financial support and technical expertise to Hezbollah, which, acting at the behest and under the operational control of defendants, was an agent of defendants.”).

Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 81 (D.D.C. 2010).

Damages “In determining the appropriate award of damages for solatium, the Court may look to prior decisions awarding damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as to decisions regarding solatium.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 78 (D.D.C. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Damages “In determining the appropriate award of damages for solatium, the Court may look to prior decisions awarding damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as to decisions regarding solatium.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 78 (D.D.C. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

"Relatives of surviving servicemen receive[ ] awards valued at half of the awards to family member of th[ose] deceased[.]" Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010).

See Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 74 (D.D.C. 2010) (“[P]laintiffs who have claimed assault, battery, and IIED may recover under only one of any such theories, as multiple recovery is prohibited.”). 25 for his continuing pain and suffering.

Rather, as a compromise, they have taken judicial notice of the relevant prior opinion and then “review[ed] evidence considered” in the previous case for the purposes of making their own findings “without [requiring] the re-presentment of such evidence.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 59 (D.D.C. 2010); accord Brewer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 664 F. Supp. 2d 43, 47 (D.D.C. 2009).

Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 73 (D.D.C. 2010); see also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 76 (same).

As to the first condition, “acts of terrorism are, by their very nature, intended to harm and to terrify by instilling fear of further harm.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 73 (D.D.C. 2010).

Baseline awards are “not set in stone,” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010), but instead, they are “guideposts,” and “courts should deviate depending on the circumstances.” Fritz, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 62 (citation omitted).

Feb. 29, 2024); Valore, 700 F. Supp 2d at 75; Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 72 (D.D.C. 2010).

Aug. 30, 2024) (finding Syrian-funded terrorists’ torturing and killing of two servicemen “horrific, egregious, and designed to have maximum public impact by instilling fear”); Murphy v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 80 (D.D.C. 2010) (“The nature of the defendants’ acts [in bombing a marine barracks] and the nature and extent of the harm defendants intentionally caused are among the most heinous the Court can fathom.”).

“In determining the appropriate award of damages for solatium, the Court may look to prior decisions awarding damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as to decisions regarding solatium.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 78 (D.D.C. 2010).

This damages framework “has strong precedential support” in this Circuit, but the numbers “are not set in stone,” such that a court “may award greater amounts in cases ‘with aggravating circumstances . . . .’” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F. Supp. 2d 90, 108 (D.D.C. 2006)).

This damages framework “has strong precedential support” in this Circuit, but the numbers “are not set in stone,” such that a court “may award greater amounts in cases ‘with aggravating circumstances . . . .’” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F. Supp. 2d 90, 108 (D.D.C. 2006)).

Assault Liability for assault requires two conditions: “(1) [the defendants] acted ‘intending to cause a harmful contact with ..., or an imminent apprehension of such a contact’ by, those attacked and (2) those attacked were ‘thereby put in such imminent apprehension.”” Wultz, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 10 35 (second alteration in original) (quoting Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 73 (D.D.C. 2010))).

“Spouses typically receive greater damage awards than parents, who, in turn, receive greater awards than siblings,” and “families of victims who have died are typically awarded greater damages than families of victims who remain alive.” Heiser, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 269 (internal quotation marks omitted).° The Court notes also that there is some inconsistency in the amounts awarded to children of deceased victims with $3 million indicated as the amount to be awarded in cases su…

The theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress also establishes Iran’s liability to Lan and S.Q. 4 Both are immediate family members as Wang’s “parent[]” and “child[].” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 75 (D.D.C. 2010). “[H]ostage taking and torture,” moreover, are “sufficiently outrageous to inflict severe emotional harm on family members who were not present” for the acts.

A court taking judicial notice of another court’s fact findings “generally cannot take notice of findings of fact from other proceedings for the truth asserted therein because these are disputable and usually are disputed.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 58 (D.D.C. 2010) (Lamberth, C.J.) (citations omitted).

Aug. 12, 2022); Flanagan, 87 F. Supp. 3d 93, at 119-27 ; Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 87-90 (D.D.C. 2010); Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79-82 (D.D.C. 2010).

Sichuan Provincial Gov’t, 533 F.3d 1183, 1189 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding that Sichuan Province and Qinyang District were political subdivisions of the People’s Republic of China); Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 63 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding that Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security was considered a political subdivision of Iran and therefore covered by FSIA).

First, “[r]ecurrent awards in case after case arising out of the same facts can . . . over- punish[] the same conduct through repeated awards with little additional deterrent effect.” Maxwell, 2024 WL 1342775 , at *24 (quoting Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 81 (D.D.C. 2010)).

And while the Court recognizes that each of these plaintiffs “suffered great personal loss at the death of family members dearly loved,” it finds, as other courts have in these circumstances, that “none suffered the particularly devastating and uniquely acute suffering warranting an upward departure, such as nervous breakdowns or self-destructive behavior.” Murphy. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 79 (D.D.C. 2010); cf. Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 86 (awarding …

See Peterson, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 56 (awarding $7.5 million for broken femur, hand, and pelvis bones, cuts and bruises, and a completely rotated left foot); Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 78 (D.D.C. 2010) (awarding $7.5 million for an impaled rectum and split stomach, leading to 11 months with a colostomy bag, a crushed kidney, fractured pelvis, detached ear, and damage to legs and feet confining victim to a wheelchair for many months).

Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 73 (D.D.C. 2010); see also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 76 (same).

EVID. 201, Advisory Committee Note). 2 of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 55 (D.D.C. 2010)); see also Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Oveissi II”), 879 F. Supp. 2d 44, 50 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding courts permitted “in subsequent related cases to rely upon the evidence presented in earlier litigation” (citation omitted)); Est. of Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 873 F. Supp. 2d 232, 237 (D.D.C. 2012) (taking “judicial notice of the evidence presented in the earlier cases”).

Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 73 (D.D.C. 2010); see also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 76 (same).

Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 75 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(2)(a)).

Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 75 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(2)(a)).

Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 73 (D.D.C. 2010); see also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 76 (same).

Iran is liable for assault if, “when it committed extrajudicial killing or provided material support and resources therefor, (1) it acted ‘intending to cause a harmful contact with . . . or an imminent apprehension of such a contact’ by, those attacked and (2) those attacked were ‘thereby put in such imminent apprehension.’” Murphy v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 73 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21(1)).

June 26, 2015) (citing Murphy v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 740 F.Supp.2d 51, 83 (D.D.C. 2010)).

In applying the Heiser framework, however, courts must appreciate 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).

As “the FSIA does not require this Court to relitigate issues that have already been settled in previous decisions,” the court can “review evidence considered in an opinion that is judicially noticed, without necessitating the re-presentment of such 3 evidence.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 59 (D.D.C. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Iran is liable for assault if, “when it committed extrajudicial killing or provided material support and resources therefor, (1) it acted ‘intending to cause a harmful contact with . . . or an imminent apprehension of such a contact’ by, those attacked and (2) those attacked were ‘thereby put in such imminent apprehension.’” Murphy v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 73 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21(1)).

Amount of Damages Available i. Solatium “Solatium is awarded to compensate . . . ‘the mental anguish, bereavement, and grief that those with a close personal relationship to a [victim] experience as the result of the [victim]’s death [or injury] . . . .” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 78 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Belkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 667 F. Supp. 2d 8, 22 (D.D.C. 2009)) (cleaned up); see also Abedini v. Gov’t of Islamic Republic of Iran, …

See, e.g„ Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F.Supp.2d 51, 63 (D.D.C. 2010) (“MOIS is considered to be a division of the state of Iran, and is treated as a member of the state of Iran itself.”); Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F.Supp.2d 163, 173 (D.D.C. 2010) (“Defendant IRGC ... [is] a nontraditional instrumentality of Iran that acts as the military arm of a kind of shadow government answering directly to the Ayatollah and the mullahs who hold power in Iran”).