UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KENT M. MAUPIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v. Civil Action No. 17-1213 (CKK)
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(September 19, 2019)
This case arises from the death of an American, Keith Matthew Maupin, in Iraq sometime
between 2004 and 2008. Plaintiffs LeaAnn Cottrell and Stephen Spencer are the half-blood
siblings of the decedent on his mother’s side, and Plaintiff Kent Maupin is the half-blood sibling
of the decedent on his father’s side. Plaintiffs allege that Maupin was killed by a terrorist
organization led by Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi (the “Zarqawi Terrorist Organization”). Proceeding
under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Syrian
Arab Republic (“Syria”) and the Syrian Military Intelligence provided material support and
resources to the Zarqawi Terrorist Organization and accordingly should be held liable for this
death. The Court agrees.
Defendants have not answered or otherwise participated in this litigation. The case
accordingly proceeded in a default setting. The Court did not require a liability hearing, as this
case involves the same issue as was presented in Foley v. Syrian Arab Republic, No. 11-cv-699
(D.D.C). In that case, following a liability hearing, this Court concluded that Syria and the
Syrian Military Intelligence were liable for the death of Maupin, and provided damages to his
estate as well as to his parents. Foley, No. 11-cv-699, ECF No. 76; see also generally Foley v.
Syrian Republic, 249 F. Supp. 3d 186 (D.D.C. 2017). Adopting the factual findings and
1
conclusions of law from Foley, in a previous Memorandum Opinion, the Court determined that
Plaintiffs established their claims by evidence satisfactory to the Court, and accordingly granted
default judgment against Defendants as to liability. March 20, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order, ECF No. 27. The Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in that Memorandum
Opinion and Order are incorporated into this Memorandum Opinion as though stated in full. The
Court referred the issue of damages to a Special Master.
Upon consideration of the pleadings, 1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a
whole, the Court will now grant Plaintiffs default judgment in this case in full. It will affirm and
adopt the Special Master’s findings and recommendations on damages.
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on June 20, 2017. Compl., ECF No. 1. On January 2, 2019,
Plaintiffs moved for an entry of default, contending that service had been completed as to
Defendants Syria and Syrian Military Intelligence under 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a)(4), and that
Defendants had failed to answer or otherwise respond within 60 days. ECF No. 23. On January
3, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion. January 3, 2019 Minute Order. The Court found
that Plaintiffs had accomplished service by conveying the service documents to the Syrian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs by way of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, the
Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to enter a default as to Defendants Syria and the Syrian
Military Intelligence pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Id. The Clerk of the Court entered default
on January 3, 2019. ECF No. 24.
1
The Court’s consideration has focused on the Special Masters’ damages reports, ECF No. 32,
and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Adoption of the Special Master’s Damages Awards, ECF No. 33. In an
exercise of its discretion, and noting Plaintiffs’ statement that they do not request a hearing, the
Court finds that holding oral argument would not be of assistance in rendering a decision. See
LCvR 7(f).
2
The Court was not required to hold a liability hearing in this matter as this case involves
the same issue as was presented in Foley v. Syrian Arab Republic, No. 11-cv-699 (D.D.C). The
Court took judicial notice and adopted the relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law from
Foley as to Defendants’ liability.
In a previous Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for
default judgment against each Defendant as to liability. ECF No. 26. The Court then appointed
Alan Balaran as a Special Master to administer damages proceedings. ECF No. 31. The Court
ordered Mr. Balaran to file a damages report. Id. The Court further ordered that any party could
file an objection to Mr. Balaran’s report within 21 days of the filing on the public docket. Id.
The Court further ordered that failure to meet this deadline would result in permanent waiver of
objections to Mr. Balaran’s findings, and that absent objection, Mr. Balaran’s findings, report and
recommendations would be deemed approved, accepted and ordered by the Court, unless the
Court provided otherwise. Id.
Special Master Balaran reviewed the record in this case upon which the Court based its
liability findings, and also received additional evidence. On September 18, 2019, Special Master
Balaran filed his damages report. ECF No. 32. The Special Master recommended that each of
the three Plaintiffs receive an enhancement of $1 million in addition to the $2.5 million baseline
award set out in Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp.2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006), for a total
of $3.5 million each in compensatory damages for loss of solatium. Id. at 16.
Following the Special Master’s Report, Plaintiffs filed a Motion asking the Court to
adopt the Special Master’s report in whole. ECF No. 33. Plaintiffs stated that they have no
objections to the Special Master’s fact findings or conclusions of law. The Court has reviewed
3
the Special Master’s Report and agrees with the Special Master’s fact findings and conclusions
of law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Special’s Masters Report in full.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts and affirms the Special Master’s damages
report, including the conclusions and analysis. The Court will order that Plaintiffs be granted
damage awards in the amounts specified by the Special Master. Default judgment having now
been entered for Plaintiffs, this case will be dismissed. An appropriate order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
4