Sotloff v. Syrian Arab Republic ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ARTHUR BARRY SOTLOFF, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 16-725 (TJK)
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to adopt Special Master Deborah Greenspan’s Report
and Recommendation for compensatory damages and to award punitive damages. For the
following reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion in full and award a total judgment of
$200,302,018.59 in compensatory damages and $400,604,037.18 in punitive damages.
I. Background
In late 2014, James Foley and Steven Sotloff—American journalists kidnapped by jihadists
while reporting on the civil war and humanitarian crisis in Syria—were executed by the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (“ISIS”), a terrorist organization long supported by the Syrian
government. Before they were beheaded, Foley and Sotloff were held captive in various locations,
where they were subjected to physical and psychological torture.1 As a result, Foley’s and
Sotloff’s estates and affected family members sued Syria under the terrorism exception to the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), claiming that the state’s material support of ISIS
proximately caused the kidnappings, torture, and extrajudicial killings. After a two-day
1
The Court otherwise assumes familiarity with the facts of this case, set forth in its opinion
awarding Plaintiffs a default judgment against Syria. See Sotloff v. Syrian Arab Republic, 525 F.
Supp. 3d 121, 127–32 (D.D.C. 2021).
evidentiary hearing, the Court entered default judgment against Syria, see Sotloff v. Syrian Arab
Republic, 525 F. Supp. 3d 121 (D.D.C. 2021), appointed Deborah Greenspan as a Special Master,
and requested that she prepare a report “regarding each Plaintiff’s compensatory damages claims”
to include “findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding each item of compensatory damages.”
ECF No. 48 at 2. The Court reserved the matter of punitive damages for itself. Id.Relying on depositions, affidavits, expert opinions, and other evidence, the Special Master
produced a detailed report containing the facts relevant to the compensatory damages claims and
analyzing those facts under the law. See generally ECF No. 54. Plaintiffs have now moved for
the Court to adopt the report, enter judgment in the same amounts suggested by the Special Master,
and award punitive damages in an amount that is double the requested compensatory damages—
$400,604,037.18. See ECF No. 55.
After reviewing the Special Master’s thorough and well-written report, for which the Court
thanks her, the Court adopts its factual findings and recommendations without alteration. Thus,
the Court will award Plaintiffs a total judgment of $200,302,018.59 for compensatory damages,
including prejudgment interest for two of the claims. In addition, for the reasons below, the Court
will award punitive damages of $400,604,037.18—to be apportioned to each Plaintiff relative to
their individual compensatory award.
II. Analysis
Under the FSIA, a foreign state is liable to victims of state-sponsored terrorism for money
damages, including “economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.” 28
U.S.C.A. § 1605A(c). Thus, “deceased plaintiffs’ estates can recover economic losses stemming
from wrongful death of the decedent; family members can recover solatium for their emotional
injury; and all plaintiffs can recover punitive damages.” Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 78 F.
2
Supp. 3d 379, 401–02 (D.D.C. 2015) (citing Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d
52, 83 (D.D.C. 2010)). “To obtain damages against a non-immune foreign state under the FSIA,
a plaintiff must prove that the consequences of the foreign state’s conduct were ‘reasonably
certain’ (i.e., more likely than not) to occur, and must prove the amount of damages by a
‘reasonable estimate’ consistent with this [Circuit]’s application of the American rule on
damages.” Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F. Supp. 2d 105, 115–16 (D.D.C. 2005)
(quoting Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680, 681 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). In determining the
“reasonable estimate,” courts may look to expert testimony and prior awards for comparable
injury. See Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F. Supp. 2d 204, 214 (D.D.C. 2012); Acosta v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29 (D.D.C. 2008). But in a default case, the Court
may not exceed the amount demanded by the plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c).
As discussed below, Plaintiffs request—and the Court will award—both compensatory and
punitive damages.
A. Compensatory Damages
Before the consolidation of their cases, Plaintiffs—in their respective complaints—each
sought damages for pain and suffering, economic loss, and solatium. As a result, and without
objection, the Court adopts the Special Master’s recommendations for compensatory damages and
for prejudgment interest on the pain-and-suffering and past-economic-loss awards to Sotloff’s and
Foley’s estates. For the reasons described in the report, the Court will award the recommended
damages and prejudgment interest to each Plaintiff. See ECF No. 54 at 24–54. These amounts,
totaling $200,302,018.59, are reflected in the following chart:
3
Plaintiff Pain and Past Future Solatium Total Award
Suffering with Economic Economic
Prejudgment Loss with Loss
Interest Prejudgment
Interest
Estate of Steven Sotloff $75,076,279.55 $245,149.08 $684,027.00 $76,005,455.63
Estate of James Foley $80,320,231.73 $282,899.23 $443,432.00 $81,046,562.96
Arthur Barry Sotloff $7,500,000.00 $7,500,000.00
Shirley Goldie Pulwer $7,500,000.00 $7,500,000.00
Lauren Sotloff $3,750,000.00 $3,750,000.00
John William Foley $7,500,000.00 $7,500,000.00
Diane Maria Foley $7,500,000.00 $7,500,000.00
Lt. Col. John Elliot Foley $3,250,000.00 $3,250,000.00
Mark Vincent Foley $3,125,000.00 $3,125,000.00
Kathryn Foley Simpson $3,125,000.00 $3,125,000.00
See id. at 55.
B. Punitive Damages
The Court did not task the Special Master with recommending a punitive damage award.
Rather, the Court reserved for itself whether this case calls for punitive damages and, if so, how
much. ECF No. 48 at 2. On its own review, the Court now concludes that Syria’s conduct relative
to this case warrants a substantial award of punitive damages.
Under the FSIA, a foreign sovereign that sponsors terrorism may be liable for punitive
damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Punitive damages do not compensate the victim but punish and
deter future outrageous conduct by the foreign state. See Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 879
F. Supp. 2d 44, 55–56 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659
F. Supp. 2d 31, 61 (D.D.C. 2009)); Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d
20, 30 (D.D.C. 2009). In deciding whether to award punitive damages, courts look to four factors:
4
“(1) the character of the defendants’ act, (2) the nature and extent of harm to the plaintiffs that the
defendants caused or intended to cause, (3) the need for deterrence, and (4) the wealth of the
defendants.” Doe v. Syrian Arab Republic, No. 18-cv-66 (KBJ), 2020 WL 5422844, at *17
(D.D.C. Sept. 10, 2020) (quoting Acosta, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 30). Courts have found these factors
satisfied when a defendant has provided material support to a terrorist organization in carrying out
an act of terrorism. See, e.g., Baker v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 775 F. Supp.
2d 48, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding that an award of punitive damages was warranted where
“defendants supported, protected, harbored, aided, abetted, enabled, sponsored, conspired with,
and subsidized a known terrorist organization whose modus operandi included the targeting,
brutalization, and murder of American citizens and others”).
Considering these four factors, and as courts have routinely found in FSIA cases brought
against Syria under the terrorism exception, the Court finds that a substantial award of punitive
damages is justified in this case.2 As for the first factor, ISIS militants’ treatment of Foley and
Sotloff—including their kidnapping, torture, and execution—was nothing short of horrific. See
Frost v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 419 F. Supp. 3d 112, 116 (D.D.C. 2020) (finding that the
kidnapping and torture of three American citizens by members of a terrorist organization in Iraq
“was a heinous act” that “caused tremendous suffering for the [victims] and affected family
members”); Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53, 74 (D.D.C. 2008) (determining
that documenting the executions of two American hostages “transformed heinous acts into
2
See, e.g., Colvin v. Syrian Arab Republic, 363 F. Supp. 3d 141, 163–65 (D.D.C. 2019) (awarding
$300 million in punitive damages for the bombing of a media complex); Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab
Republic, 167 F. Supp. 3d 22, 53–55 (D.D.C. 2016) (awarding $300 million in punitive damages
for the bombing of multiple hotels in Jordan); Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53,
75 (D.D.C. 2008) (awarding $300 million in punitive damages for the torture and beheadings of
two American contractors).
5
infamous and indelible propaganda that served the Syrian political ends,” warranting an award of
punitive damages). The second factor also points to a substantial award. The harm caused by
Syria’s support of the Islamic State is unquantifiable, as it resulted in both Foley’s and Sotloff’s
death, leading in turn to their families’ emotional devastation. As for the third factor, several
courts have recognized the need to deter sovereign states like Syria from committing terrorist acts
in the future. See Flanagan v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 87 F. Supp. 3d 93, 119–20 (D.D.C. 2015)
(collecting cases); see also Colvin v. Syrian Arab Republic, 363 F. Supp. 3d 141, 163 (D.D.C.
2019) (“[O]nly a large amount of punitive damages can serve as an effective deterrent against
future terrorist acts.” (quoting Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 424 F. Supp. 2d 74, 88 (D.D.C.
2006)). Finally, Syria’s vast wealth supports an award of punitive damages. See Colvin, 363 F.
Supp. 3d at 163. Punitive damages are thus warranted in this case.
From there, the Court must decide the proper measure of punitive damages. Courts
confronting a similar task have taken different approaches. In cases involving “exceptionally
deadly attacks,” courts multiply the foreign state’s annual expenditures on terrorism by a factor
between three and five. See Warmbier v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 356 F. Supp.
3d 30, 59–60 (D.D.C. 2018). As a second option, where similar conduct has already been litigated,
courts assign punitive damages based on the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages in those
earlier cases. See id. at 60. Multipliers in such cases range “between one and five depending on
various factors, including, among other things, whether the case involved exceptional
circumstances, the perceived deterrence effect, the nexus between the defendant and the injurious
acts, and the evidence plaintiffs presented regarding the defendant’s funding for terrorist
activities.” Hamen v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 407 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2019). And a third
approach simply awards $150,000,000 per affected family. Warmbier, 356 F. Supp. 3d at 60.
6
On the record before it, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the second approach is
appropriate here, and it will award punitive damages double the compensatory damages. See ECF
No. 55 at 2–3. Tragically, this Court is no stranger to cases like this one—involving U.S. citizens
kidnapped, tortured, and killed in a foreign nation by sovereign-backed militias. See, e.g., Frost,
419 F. Supp. 3d at 113. In Frost, the Court employed the second approach to calculate punitive
damages, using a multiplier of two. Id. at 117–18. Given the relative similarity between these
Plaintiffs and those in Frost, this Court will again use a multiplier of two and award punitive
damages double the amount of compensatory damages, as Plaintiffs request. The Court will
therefore award punitive damages of $400,604,037.18 to be apportioned to each Plaintiff relative
to their individual compensatory awards.
III. Conclusion
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court adopts the Special
Master’s factual findings and recommendations and awards a total judgment of $200,302,018.59
in compensatory damages. In addition, the Court will award $400,604,037.18 in punitive damages,
to be apportioned to each Plaintiff relative to their individual compensatory awards. A separate
order will issue.
/s/ Timothy J. Kelly
TIMOTHY J. KELLY
United States District Judge
Date: March 31, 2023
7