Family members sued Iran for bombing

Federal District Court Opinions

ESTATE OF HEISER v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, (D.C.
12-22-2006) ESTATE OF MICHAEL HEISER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. ESTATE OF
MILLARD D. CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISLAMIC
REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.
00-2329 (RCL), Civil Action No. 01-2104 (RCL). United
States District Court, D. Columbia. December 22, 2006

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE LAMBERTH, District Judge

BACKGROUND

These actions arise from the June 25, 1996 bombing at
Khobar Towers, a residence on a United States military base
in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The plaintiffs in this
consolidated action are the family members and estates of
17 of the 19 servicemen killed in the attack. Plaintiffs
allege that the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), the
Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”), the
Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (“IRGC” or “the
Pasdaran”), and “John Does 1-99” are liable for damages
from the attack because they provided material support and
Page 2 assistance to Hezbollah,[fn1] the terrorist
organization that orchestrated and carried out the
bombing.[fn2] 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).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In their second amended complaints, plaintiffs named as
defendants (1) the Islamic Republic of Iran; (2) the
Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”); (3)
the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC” or
“the Pasdaran”); (4) and “John Does 1-99[.]” Second Amended
Complaints, § 1; see also id., §§ 24,
25, 27, 29. Plaintiffs sought damages for wrongful death
(Count I); survival action (Count II); “economic damages”
(Count III); intentional infliction of emotional distress
(Count IV); for plaintiffs Ibis S. Haun, Marie R. Campbell,
Shyrl L. Johnson, Katie L. Marthaler and Dawn Woody, loss
of consortium (Count V); solatium (Count VI); and “punitive
damages” (Count VII).

Plaintiffs requested judgment in their favor against all of
the defendants. In addition, the plaintiffs in Civil Action
No. 00-2329 sought compensatory damages against all
defendants in the amount of $890,000,000, “plus economic
damages in an amount to be determined at trial for each of
Decedents’ Estates”; punitive damages against defendants
MOIS, the IRGC and John Does 1-99 in the amount of
$500,000,000; and reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys’
fees. Page 3 The plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 01-2104
sought compensatory damages against all defendants in the
amount of $3,660,000,000 “plus economic damages in an
amount to be determined at trial for each of Decedents’
Estates”; punitive damages against defendants MOIS, the
IRGC and John Does 1-99 in the amount of $500,000,000; and
reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.

On February 1, 2002, the court (Jackson, J.) consolidated
the two civil actions, and in Civil Action No. 00-2329,
granted the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default as to
defendants Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC.
February 1, 2002 Order (Docket No. 9, Civil Action No.
00-2329) at 1. On February 6, 2002, the Clerk entered a
default in Civil Action No. 00-2329 against defendants
Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC. Default
(Docket No. 10, Civil Action No. 00-2329). On July 30,
2002, both actions were referred to Magistrate Judge
Robinson for all purposes. (July 30, 2002 Order (Docket No.
11) at 1.) On October 4, 2002, Magistrate Judge Robinson
granted plaintiffs’ motion in Civil Action No. 01-2104 for
entry of default as to defendants Islamic Republic of Iran,
MOIS and the IRGC. (October 4, 2002 Order (Docket No. 11,
Civil Action No. 01-2104) at 1.) On October 8, 2002, the
Clerk entered a default in Civil Action No. 01-2104 against
defendants Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC.
Default (Docket No. 12, Civil Action No. 01-2104) at 1. On
March 14, 2003, plaintiffs moved for a continuance of the
hearing on liability and damages. Plaintiffs’ counsel
represented that counsel “has learned that certain
immediate family members of the soldiers killed in the
Khobar Towers terrorist attack — family members who
have cognizable claims under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act (“FSIA”) — are not currently named as
parties in these consolidated actions.” (Motion for
Continuance of Trial Date and Request for Scheduling
Conference (Docket Page 4 No. 16) at 2.) Counsel further
represented that the firm “is in the process of identifying
all such family members and anticipates filing amended
complaints within the next several weeks.” Id. Magistrate
Judge Robinson granted plaintiffs’ motion, and, in
accordance with the request of plaintiffs’ counsel,
“tentatively” scheduled the hearing for “the period of
December 1, 2003 to December 18, 2003[.]” (March 17, 2003
Order (Docket No. 17) at 1.) Plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaints on May 6, 2003.

Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motions to vacate their
consent to proceed before a magistrate judge for all
purposes and to clarify the purpose of the referral to a
magistrate judge, the court re-referred the consolidated
civil actions to Magistrate Judge Robinson “to hear and
determine pretrial matters as permitted thereby, and
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), to conduct
hearings, and to submit proposed findings and
recommendations for the disposition by the Court of any
motion for judgment by default upon the evidence submitted
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e).” (Docket No.
[20] at 1-2.) The Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for
clarification of the referral. (August 22, 2003 Order
(Docket No. 25) at 1.) On September 3, 2003, Magistrate
Judge Robinson scheduled the hearing on liability and
damages for December 1 through December 18, 2003.
(September 3, 2003 Order (Docket No. 26) at 1.)

Plaintiffs filed their pretrial statement on October 31,
2003 ((Docket No. 30).) In accordance with Magistrate Judge
Robinson’s Final Pretrial Order (Docket No. 32), plaintiffs
filed a memorandum regarding issues relevant to liability.
See Supplemental Bench Memorandum on Liability Issues
(“Memorandum on Liability”) (Docket No. 33). In the
memorandum, plaintiffs stated that they “do not expect to
identify [Defendants] John Does 1-99 before the
commencement of the trial[,]” and that “[a]ccordingly,
Plaintiffs will not seek a Page 5 finding of liability
against the co-conspirators John Does 1-99, who were named
as defendants when the complaints in this consolidated
action were filed.” (Memorandum on Liability at 9.) On
November 19, 2003, plaintiffs moved for entry of default
against the Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC.
(Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default (Docket No. 38) at
1.) The Court granted the motion. November 26, 2003 Order.
(Docket No. 39, Civil Action No. 00-2329; Docket No. 32,
Civil Action No. 01-2104.)

Plaintiffs examined witnesses and offered other evidence
with respect to liability and damages on December 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19, 2003. On December
19, 2003, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss
Defendants “John Does 1-99,” and Magistrate Judge Robinson
granted the motion. (December 19, 2003 Tr. (Docket No. 128)
at 69-70.) The magistrate judge recessed the hearing until
February 5, 2004, the earliest date that plaintiffs’
counsel, plaintiffs’ witnesses and the court were be
available to continue. Magistrate Judge Robinson received
further evidence on February 5, 6, 9 and 10, 2004.

During the recess in the evidentiary hearing a panel of
the District of Columbia Circuit decided Cicippio-Puleo v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Plaintiffs asked that the hearing resume on February 5,
2004 as scheduled. On February 6, 2004, when the schedule
for the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing and for
closing argument was addressed by Magistrate Judge
Robinson, counsel for plaintiffs asked that counsel’s
closing argument be deferred until counsel filed
Plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Magistrate Judge Robinson ordered that plaintiffs file
their proposed findings and conclusions on April 1, 2004,
the date proposed by plaintiffs’ counsel. Magistrate Judge
Robinson scheduled plaintiffs’ closing argument for April
15, 2004, the date proposed by Plaintiffs’ counsel. On
Page 6 April 9, 2004, Magistrate Judge Robinson postponed
the April 15 closing argument, intending to order
supplemental briefing of issues relevant to the liability
of the remaining defendants.

In light of the D.C. Circuit’s opinions in Cicippio-Puleo
and Acree v. Republic of Iraq,[fn3] plaintiffs moved to
modify the magistrate judge’s Final Pretrial Order, or in
the alternative to file third amended complaints so as to
incorporate claims based in state law. On August 4, 2004,
Magistrate Judge Robinson denied plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration; granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to
file third amended complaints; and ordered that plaintiffs
file the third amended complaints by August 9, 2004. (Aug.
4, 2004 Order (Docket No. 103) at 2-3.)

Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaints on August 4,
2004. Plaintiffs named as defendants in the third amended
complaints the Islamic Republic of Iran, the “Iranian
Ministry of Information and Security[,]” and the “Iranian
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps[.]” Plaintiffs again
alleged that “[t]he Hizbollah terrorist organization is a
creation and agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran”; that
“[i]n 1995, Hizbollah began plotting a terrorist attack
against United States interests in Saudi Arabia”; and that
“[Hizbollah] ultimately detonated a bomb outside Khobar
Towers.” (Third Amended Complaints at 2.) Plaintiffs allege
that “[u]nder United States law, the Islamic Republic of
Iran — which funds, trains, and directs Hizbollah
through the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security and
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps — is
responsible for this terrorist attack and for the murder of
[Plaintiffs’ decedents].” Id.