Gration v. Islamic Republic of Iran

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JONATHAN SCOTT GRATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 21-cv-1859 (BAH)

v. Judge Beryl A. Howell

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action arises out of the bombing on June 25, 1996, of the Khobar Towers apartment

complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which housed United States military personnel. Pls.’ Am.

Complaint (“Compl.”) at 4, ECF No. 23. The explosion killed nineteen American

servicemembers and injured dozens of others including 26 servicemember plaintiffs in this case.

Id. at 4, ¶ 141. The remaining plaintiffs are 53 immediate family members of servicemembers

harmed in the attack, including the 26 servicemember plaintiffs in this lawsuit and four

servicemembers who were plaintiffs in Christie v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 19-cv-1289

(BAH), 2020 WL 3606273 (D.D.C. July 2, 2020) (Howell, C.J.). See Compl. at 4. Plaintiffs

allege that defendants, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and

the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, are liable under the terrorism exception to the

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, for its material support of

Hezbollah terrorists that bombed the Khobar Towers complex. Id. ¶¶ 1, 157. Although plaintiffs

have complied with the FSIA’s requirements for service on defendant, Iran has failed to enter an

appearance or otherwise defend against this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4); Return of

Service/Affidavit of Summons and Complaint Executed, ECF No. 36; Clerk’s Entry of Default,

1
ECF No. 38. Plaintiffs now seek default judgment against defendants as to liability and

damages. See Pls.’ Mot. for Entry of Default J. as to Liability & Damages, to Take Judicial

Notice of Evidence in Related Prior Cases, and Request to Submit Documentary Evidence Under

Seal (“Pls.’ Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 40. For the reasons detailed below, plaintiffs’ motion is

granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Eleven prior decisions of this Court have found defendants liable for the Khobar Towers

bombing: Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2006) (Lamberth, J.);

Est. of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Heiser I”), 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006)

(Lamberth, J.); Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010)

(Lamberth, J.); Akins v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Akins I”), 332 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018)

(Howell, C.J.); Schooley v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 17-cv-1376 (BAH), 2019 WL 2717888

(D.D.C. June 27, 2019) (Howell, C.J.); Aceto v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 19-cv-464 (BAH),

2020 WL 619925 (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2020) (Howell, C.J.); Christie, 2020 WL 3606273; Akins v.

Islamic Republic of Iran (“Akins II”), 549 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D.D.C. July 16, 2021) (Howell, C.J.);

Blank v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 19-cv-3645 (BAH), 2021 WL 3021450 (D.D.C. July 17,

2021) (Howell, C.J.); Ackley v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 20-cv-621 (BAH), 2022 WL

3354720 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2022) (Howell, C.J.); Mustard v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 21-cv-

163 (BAH), 2023 WL 1778193 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2023) (Howell, C.J.).

In Blais and Heiser I, the Court heard evidence and witness testimony. See Blais, 459 F.

Supp. 2d at 46 n.4; Heiser I, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 250. In Heiser I alone, the offering of evidence

took seventeen days, which included examination of witnesses, including seven expert witnesses.

2
See 466 F. Supp. 2d at 250. 1 Rimkus, Akins, and Schooley concluded that judicial notice of the

findings of fact in Blais and Heiser I was appropriate, see Rimkus, 750 F. Supp. 2d at 167; Akins

I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 10; Schooley, 2019 WL 2717888, at *2, and plaintiffs here “submit that

prior related cases established overwhelmingly that the Iranian Defendants are liable for their

conduct that caused the Attack and ask that this Court take judicial notice of those proceedings.”

Pls.’ Amended Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Take Judicial Notice for Default J. as to Liability &

Damages and to Submit Documentary Evidence Under Seal (“Pls.’ Mem.”) at 9, ECF No. 41.

Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes a court to “judicially notice”

adjudicative facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute because” they “can be accurately

and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R.

EVID. 201(b). 2 Rule 201 is used frequently to notice judicially factual evidence developed in

other FSIA proceedings “involving the same conduct by the same defendants,” Akins I, 332 F.

Supp. 3d at 11, “even when those proceedings have taken place in front of a different judge,”

Foley v. Syrian Arab Republic, 249 F. Supp. 3d 186, 191 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Brewer v. Islamic

Republic of Iran, 664 F. Supp. 2d 43, 54 (D.D.C. 2009)). This avoids “the formality of having

that evidence reproduced.” Taylor v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 811 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.

2011) (citing Rimkus II, 750 F. Supp. 2d at 172); see also Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

1
The expert witnesses in Heiser I were: (1) Louis Freeh, the former Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”); (2) Dr. Patrick Clawson, a scholar of Middle Eastern politics who has frequently provided
expert testimony regarding Iran’s involvement in sponsoring terrorism; (3) Dr. Bruce Tefft, a founding member of
the CIA’s Counterterrorism Bureau and regular consultant on issues of terrorism; (4) Dale Watson, the former
Deputy Counterterrorism Chief of the FBI, see Heiser I, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 260–65; (5) Dr. Thomas Parsons, a
medical examiner, see id. at 268; (6) Dr. Dana Cable, a licensed psychologist and expert on grief process, see id. at
269–70; and (7) Dr. Herman Miller, an economic consultant, see id. at 273–74.
2
“[A]djudicative facts are simply the facts of the particular case.” Nat’l Org. for Women, Wash., D.C.
Chapter v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 736 F.2d 727, 737 n.95 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Robinson, C.J., concurring) (quoting FED. R.
EVID. 201(a), Advisory Committee Note). The Rule does not govern judicial notice of “legislative fact[s],” FED. R.
EVID. 201(a), which are “those which have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process, whether in the
formulation of a legal principle or ruling by a judge or court or in the enactment of a legislative body,” Nat’l Org.
for Women, 736 F.2d 727 at 737 n.95 (quoting FED. R. EVID. 201, Advisory Committee Note).

3
(“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”). Taking judicial notice of prior findings

“does not conclusively establish the facts found in those cases” in the later FSIA case. Foley,

249 F. Supp. 3d at 191. Rather, “based on judicial notice of the evidence presented in the earlier

cases[,] . . . courts may reach their own independent findings of fact.” Anderson v. Islamic

Republic of Iran, 753 F. Supp. 2d 68, 75 (D.D.C. 2010); see also Rimkus, 750 F. Supp. 2d at 172.

In fact, “courts in FSIA litigation have adopted a middle-ground approach that permits courts in

subsequent related cases to rely upon the evidence presented in earlier litigation—without

necessitating the formality of having that evidence reproduced—to reach their own, independent

findings of fact in the cases before them.” Rimkus, 750 F. Supp. 2d at 172. 3

This Court is persuaded that this approach is both “efficient and sufficiently protective of

the absent defendant[’s] interests,” Akins I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 11, and will therefore grant

plaintiffs’ request to take judicial notice of the evidence presented in Mustard, 2023 WL

1778193; Ackley, 2022 WL 3354720; Blank, 2021 WL 3021450; Akins II, 549 F. Supp. 3d 104;

Christie, 2020 WL 3606273; Aceto, 2020 WL 619925; Schooley, 2019 WL 2717888; Akins I,

332 F. Supp. 3d 1; Valencia v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010)

(Lamberth, J.); Rimkus, 575 F. Supp. 2d at 181; Heiser I, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229; and Blais, 459 F.

Supp. 2d 40. See Akins I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 11 (stating that “factual evidence developed in other

3
The D.C. Circuit has endorsed the use of judicial notice to establish facts in FSIA terrorism cases. In Han
Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the D.C. Circuit held that plaintiffs had “met their burden of
producing evidence ‘satisfactory to the court’” to establish subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA, where the
only evidence linking North Korea to the victim’s disappearance was a South Korean court’s conviction of a North
Korean agent, of which the district court had taken judicial notice. 774 F.3d 1044, 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see also
id. 1051.

4
cases “involving the same conduct by the same defendants is admissible and may be relied upon

in this case.”). The evidence regarding the Khobar Towers bombing is summarized below,

followed by an overview of the procedural history of this case.

A. The Attack on Khobar Towers

The Khobar Towers residential complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia “housed the coalition

forces,” including the U.S. military forces, “charged with monitoring compliance with [United

Nations] security council resolutions.” Blais, 459 F. Supp. 2d at 47. Just before 10:00 p.m. on

June 25, 1996, “a large gasoline tanker truck pulled up” and parked “alongside the perimeter

wall of the Khobar Towers complex.” Heiser I, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 252; see also Compl. ¶ 138.

Security guards near the top of one of the towers, Building 131, “started to give warnings about

the unusual vehicle location,” but the truck exploded “within about 15 minutes.” Heiser I, 466 F.

Supp. 2d at 252; see also Compl. ¶ 138. The blast “sheared off the face of Building 131,” Heiser

I, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 252, and “shattered windows in virtually every other structure in the

compound and was felt 20 miles from the blast site,” Compl. ¶ 141. Subsequent “investigation

determined that the force of the explosion was the equivalent of 20,000 pounds of TNT. The

[U.S. Department of Defense] said that it was the largest non-nuclear explosion ever up to that

time.” Heiser I, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 252; see also Compl. ¶ 140.

B. Defendant Iran’s Role

Iran “has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism” by the U.S. Department of State

“since January 19, 1984.” Blais, 459 F. Supp. 2d at 47 (citation omitted); see, e.g., Fritz v.

Islamic Republic of Iran, 320 F. Supp. 3d 48, 77 (D.D.C. 2018); U.S. Dep’t of State, State

Sponsors of Terrorism, https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ (last visited June 15,

2023). Prior proceedings have found that Iran planned and supported the Khobar Towers

5
bombing. 4 Both the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran at the time, and the

Minister of Intelligence and Security “approved” the attack. Heiser I, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 252.

The truck bomb used was “assembled” at a base in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley “jointly operated by

the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (‘IRGC’)] and by the terrorist organization known as

Hezbollah,” with the individuals who carried out the bombing calling themselves “Saudi

Hezbollah.” Id.

These conclusions are based in part on the testimony of four key expert witnesses in Blais

and Heiser I. Louis Freeh, who was director of the FBI at the time of the bombing, and Dale

Watson, then deputy counterterrorism chief of the FBI, testified in Heiser I based on their

oversight of the FBI’s “massive and thorough investigation of the attack, using over 250 agents.”

Id.; see also id. at 260–62. “Based on that investigation, an Alexandria, Virginia, grand jury

returned an indictment . . . against 13 identified members of the pro-Iran Saudi Hezbollah

organization.” Id. at 252. During its investigation, the FBI interviewed six members of Saudi

Hezbollah who “admitted to the FBI their complicity in the attack on the Khobar Towers, and

admitted that senior officials in the Iranian government provided them with funding, planning,

training, sponsorship, and travel necessary to carry out the attack on the Khobar Towers.” Id. at

253. Both Freeh and Watson testified to their conclusions, based on information gathered in

their investigations, that “Iran, [the Ministry of Information and Security (‘MOIS’)], and IRGC

were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing carried out by Saudi Hezbollah.” Id. at 264.

Further, Dr. Patrick Clawson provided expert testimony in Heiser I that “the government

of Iran, MOIS, and IRGC were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, and that Saudi

Hezbollah carried out the attack under their direction.” Id. at 253. This conclusion was “based

4
Under the FSIA, Iran is “vicariously liable for the acts of its officials, employees, or agents.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1605A(c).

6
on his involvement on a Commission investigating the bombing, his top-secret security

clearance, his discussions with Saudi officials, as well as his academic research on the subject.”

Id. Dr. Bruce Tefft, a former member of the CIA’s counterterrorism bureau, supported

Clawson’s “expert opinion,” based on “publicly available sources that were not inconsistent with

classified information known to him from his time at the CIA” that “the Islamic Republic of Iran

and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp were responsible for planning and supporting the

attack on the Khobar Towers.” Id. at 253–54.

C. The Instant Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs in this action include 26 servicemembers who suffered from physical and

psychological injuries as a result of the Khobar Towers bombing and 53 immediate family

members of those servicemembers and four other servicemembers injured in the attack. See

Compl. at 4. The servicemember plaintiffs and family-member plaintiffs are described below. 5

1. Jonathan Scott Gration and Two Family Members

On June 25, 1996, Amb. Jonathan Scott Gration Maj. Gen., USAF (Ret.) was serving as a

Colonel and Commanding Officer of the 4404th Operations Group (Provisional), in the United

States Air Force, stationed in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia and quartered in the Khobar Towers

complex. Decl. of Amb. Jonathan Scott Gration, Maj. Gen., USAF (Ret.) (Apr. 28, 2022)

(“Gration Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-1. On the night of the attack, Gration was walking from the

shower to his bed when a bright flash engulfed the room and he heard a “deafening boom.” Id. ¶

5
Every plaintiff in this case has submitted a sealed declaration, with supporting documentation containing
sensitive personal information, and a redacted, public version. Otherwise sealed content referenced in this
Memorandum Opinion is unsealed as necessary to explain the Court's reasoning. See Christie v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, Civil Action No. 19-1289 (BAH), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116378, at *9 n.7 (D.D.C. July 2, 2020) (citing In re
WP Co. LLC, 201 F. Supp. 3d 109, 116 n.4 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing United States v. Reeves, 586 F.3d 20, 22 n.1 (D.C.
Cir. 2009) and United States v. Parnell, 524 F.3d 166, 167 n.1 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam))).

7
7. “The force of the blast shattered the windows and glass shards flew at [him], cutting the left

side of [his] body and legs, causing them to bleed profusely.” Id. He ran out of the room and

down the stairs, banging on doors along the way looking for others who needed help, and

instructing those who could to help evacuate injured people out of the building. Id. ¶ 8. He

carried one Airman out of the building who was so severely injured that Gration did not believe

he would survive, a memory he describes as “extremely traumatic.” Id. ¶ 9. Gration played a

leadership role in assisting the wounded immediately after the attack and thereafter eulogized

each of the deceased servicemembers, the majority of whom were under his command. Id. ¶¶

17, 19. He was awarded a Purple Heart for his injuries from the attack, id. ¶ 12; see also id., Ex.

D (Gration’s Purple Heart Certificate), as well as the Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor

Device and Meritorious Service Medal Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster, id. ¶¶ 17, 20; see also id., Exs. E

(Gration’s Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor), F (Gration’s Meritorious Service Medal

Certificate). For years after the Khobar Towers bombing, Gration suppressed the emotion of the

trauma that he had experienced, but the images of wounded people are “seared in [his] brain.”

Id. ¶ 24. He carries painful memories and emotional scars from the bombing with him every day

and continues to suffer permanent injuries from the attack, including tinnitus, hearing loss that

requires the use of hearing aids, hypertension, and congestive heart failure. Id. ¶¶ 25–26, see id.

Ex. G (Gration’s Discharge Summary). The Department of Veterans Affairs (“the VA”) has

rated him 100% disabled, including 100% for congestive heart failure with hypertension, from

the bombing. Id. ¶ 27; see also id., Ex. H (Gration’s VA Benefit Information).

Gration’s wife, Judith Ellen Gration, learned about the attack while watching television,

and was “so frightened” at the terrible damage, assuming the worst that her husband was not

safe. Decl. of Judith E. Gration (Apr. 20, 2022) (“Judith Gration Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1.

8
When Gration called informing Judith Gration that he was safe, she was relieved but very upset

to know he had been injured. Id. ¶ 7. Following the attack, Judith Gration shared her husband’s

emotional pain as she witnessed him struggle with his injuries from the attack, id. ¶ 15, and she

worked to maintain the family’s functioning as the “shock absorber, caregiver, listener, and

counselor” as her husband dealt with his responsibilities and health issues, id. ¶ 18.

Gration’s son, Jonathan Scott Gration, Jr., learned about the attack when he was in boot

camp for basic cadet training at the Air Force Academy and recieved a phone call from his father

telling him that there had been a terrorist attack on his base. Decl. of Jonathan Scott Gration, Jr.

(Mar. 17, 2022) (“Jonathan Gration, Jr. Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, 8, ECF No. 43-1. Jonathan Gration, Jr.

was in shock and continued to think about the attack every day, and it caused him a lot of stress.

Id. ¶¶ 8–9. Although “thankful” that his father had survived, id. ¶ 9, after the attack, Jonathan

Gration, Jr.’s relationship with his father was not the way it was before, with the two becoming

very distant and disconnected, id. ¶¶ 14–15. Jonathan Gration, Jr. has grown to understand

somewhat the pain his father has endured, but feels that he “lost” his father as he knew him. Id.

¶ 16.

2. Barry Gordon Brown and Two Family Members

On June 25, 1996, Barry Gordon Brown was serving as a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Air

Force stationed in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and housed in the Khobar Towers Complex. Decl. of

Barry Gordon Brown (Dec. 27, 2021) (“B. Brown Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-1. On the day of the

attack, Brown was exercising in the complex’s fitness center when the “mirrors all around the

gym exploded.” Id. ¶¶ 7–8. He realized that a bomb had exploded, and he collected everyone

from the gym and moved them to an attached parking garage. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. Upon returning to his

dorm to retrieve clothes and shoes to assist in search and rescue, Brown observed his dorm room

in complete destruction and he “was overcome with horror” that he would have been killed if he

9
was there at the time of the attack. Id. ¶ 11. Brown sustained a severe injury to his rotator cuff

while assisting in search and recovery efforts that required cortisone injections and surgery to

relieve the “excruciating pain and limited mobility.” Id. ¶ 12; see also id., Ex. D (Brown’s

Shoulder and Arm Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire). Brown remained at the

Khobar Towers for more than three months after the attack where he searched for and removed

remains of fellow servicemembers who had been killed. Id. ¶ 15. For his actions following the

attack, Brown was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor. Id.; see also id.,

Ex. E (Brown’s Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor Certificate). Every day since the

attack, Brown has experienced an “overwhelming amount of stress and anxiety” which has taken

a physical toll on him. Id. ¶ 21. His post-traumatic stress disorder eventually led to irritable

bowel syndrome (“IBS”) and hypertension with heart disease. Id.; see also id., Exs. F (Brown’s

PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire), G (Brown’s IBS Treatment Record). He continues to

suffer from the physical injuries he sustained and has been diagnosed with tinnitus, significant

pain in the right shoulder, and sleep apnea. Id. ¶ 22. The VA has rated Brown 100% disabled

due to injuries caused by the attack. Id. ¶ 22; see also id., Ex. H (Brown’s VA Benefits Letter).

Barry Brown’s former spouse, Eva Ranee Graham, learned of the attack from a phone

call from her then husband. Decl. of Eva Ranee Graham (Dec. 27, 2021) (“E. Graham Decl.”) ¶

3, 9, ECF No. 43-1. Several hours later, the commander of her husband’s unit called stating that

he did not know if her husband was dead or alive, which confused her and amounted to her

“getting the shock of [her] life twice in one day.” Id. ¶ 10. During the following week, Eva

Ranee Graham experienced “feelings of intense fear, anger, and sorrow” and began having

recurrent nightmares. Id. ¶ 13. The attack had a profound impact on her husband, and his

injuries caused their family “extreme grief and distress.” Id. ¶ 17. Unfortunately, the “emotional

10
anguish” she and her husband endured overcame their marriage and they divorced after the

attack. Id. ¶ 16.

Barry Brown’s son, Corey Thomas Brown, was four years old at the time of the attack

and he claims that his relationship with his father negatively suffered upon Barry Brown’s return

from Saudi Arabia. Decl. of Corey Thomas Brown (Jan. 3, 2022) (“C. Brown Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6,

12, ECF No. 43-1. Corey Thomas Brown was unable to form a healthy relationship with his

father, even feeling “relieved” when his parents divorced, id. ¶ 11, and that tumultuous bond

resulted in Corey Thomas Brown suffering from low self-esteem and difficulty with

relationships, id. ¶ 12.

3. Angela Mashel Brown and One Family Member

On June 25, 1996, Angela Mashel Brown was serving as a Senior Airman, Services

Specialist in the U.S. Air Force stationed in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia at the Khobar Towers

complex. Decl. of Angela Mashel Brown (Dec. 27, 2021) (“A. Brown Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-

1. She was working in the Khobar Towers recreation center at the time of the attack and the

blast of pressure from the explosion engulfed her. Id. ¶ 7. She was ordered to help with search

and rescue and was “overwhelmed by the horrific devastation” as she “waded” through blood,

body parts, and mangled people for several traumatizing hours. Id. ¶ 10. She remained at

Khobar Towers for two months performing mortuary services for fallen servicemembers. Id. ¶

13. For her actions following the attack, she was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal.

Id.; see also id., Ex. D (Brown’s Transmittal of and Entitlement to Awards). Brown immediately

began to have symptoms of PTSD and numerous major anxiety and panic attacks. Id. ¶ 14. She

also suffered from depression and ultimately separated from the military because of the triggers

of military life. Id. ¶¶ 17–18; see also id., Ex. E (Brown’s Medical Records). She is rated 80%

disabled by the VA for PTSD, tinnitus, and sleep apnea connected to her service at the Khobar

11
Towers. Id. ¶¶ 20–23; see also id., Exs. F (Brown’s VA Rating Decision Letter), G (Brown’s

VA Rated Disabilities), H (Brown’s VA Rating Decision Letter), I (Brown’s VA Benefits

Letter).

Angela Brown’s daughter, Alexis Nichole Wingate, learned about the attack from her

mother when she returned home from Saudi Arabia, Decl. of Alexis Nichole Wingate (Dec. 23,

2021) (“A. Wingate Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 8, ECF No. 43-1, and following the attack, life at home was not

the same because her mother’s “entire demeanor had changed,” id. ¶ 10. Her mother became

hypersensitive, paranoid, and emotionally unavailable. Id. In the years since the attack, Alexis

Nichole Wingate assumed the role of parenting her mother, helping her with various

responsibilities and decisions, and her mother’s physical and emotional absence caused her to

become depressed and develop low self-esteem. Id. ¶ 13.

4. Steven Lee Byers and Three Family Members

Steven Lee Byers was serving as an Airman First Class in the United States Air Force in

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and housed at the Khobar Towers complex. Decl. of Steven Lee Byers

(Jan. 25, 2022) (“S. Byers Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-1. At the time of the attack, Byers was

sitting on the couch in the day room watching the news when an explosion ripped through the

glass patio door in front of him. Id. ¶ 7. The explosion threw him into the air and he slammed

against a wall across the room where he landed on his head and neck. Id. He managed to exit

the building with help from his roommate and another airman, and once outside, he collapsed in

exhaustion and was taken to the hospital where his injuries were treated. Id. ¶¶ 8–11. The

tendon in his left knee was exposed, and he had glass fragments in both knees. Id. ¶ 10. He

immediately began to exhibit symptoms of PTSD because he had to stay in the same dorm room

with no doors or windows because of the explosion. Id. ¶ 14. Byers’s pain was so severe that

eight months after the attack he was forced to separate from the Air Force. Id. ¶ 20. He received

12
a Purple Heart for his injuries in the attack. Id. ¶ 11; see also id., Ex. D (Byers’s Purple Heart

Certificate). He still suffers from lost feeling in his legs if he sits too long and agonizing pain in

his back, legs, and knees. Id. ¶ 20. The VA has rated Byers as 80% disabled for injuries

stemming from the bombing. Id. ¶ ¶ 20–22; see also id., Ex. G (Byers’s VA Individual Ratings).

Byers’s mother, Donna Lee Byers, was “shocked and terrified” when she learned about

the attack from her husband and for many hours she did not know the exact status of her son.

Decl. of Donna Lee Byers (Feb. 8, 2022) (“D. Byers Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–9, ECF No. 43-1. This was

“torturous” and learning of her son’s injuries made her feel “numb.” Id. Since the attack, Donna

Byers has noticed the change in her son, who became anxious, easily startled, distrustful, less

social, isolated. Id. ¶ 13. To this day, she has stress about her son’s well being and is extremely

sad to see him suffer so greatly because of the attack. Id. ¶¶ 14–15.

Byers’s father, Rodney Lee Byers, learned about the attack on the radio while driving

home from work, and waited anxiously for an update on his son while his “fears and worries

only worsened.” Decl. of Rodney Lee Byers (Jan. 29, 2022) (“R. Byers Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–8, ECF

No. 43-1. When his son returned home with severe physical injuries and emotional scars,

Rodney Byers was saddened to see these changes, which “ha[ve] taken [their] toll.” Id. ¶ 15.

While they maintain a good relationship, his son’s suffering is still difficult to observe. Id. ¶ 16.

Byers’s brother, Joseph Eugene Byers, learned about the attack from his mother after his

baseball game, and he was in “shock and disbelief.” Decl. of Joseph Eugene Byers (Feb. 5,

2022) (“J. Byers Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1. When his brother returned, Joseph Byers

noticed the change in him and that behavior “rubbed off on [Joseph Byers]”—he became overly

cautious of people and places and struggled to form relationships with peers and colleagues. Id.

13
¶¶ 11–13. The attack caused the brothers to lose the close relationship that they previously had.

Id. ¶ 14.

5. Timothy Gerard Fermanis

Timothy Gerard Fermanis was serving as a Communications Technician Sergeant in the

U.S. Air Force on June 25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers. Decl. of Timothy Gerard

Fermanis (Jan. 25, 2022) (“T. Fermanis Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 43-1. At the time of the attack, he

was on the first floor of a targeted building on the complex closing a window curtain. Id. ¶ 6.

The explosion shattered that window, which sent shards of glass into his body, threw him across

the room into a wall, and knocked him unconscious. Id. He awoke to “excruciating pain” in his

head and shoulder and had shrapnel wounds and blood coming from the tops of his feet, legs,

and right knee. Id. ¶ 7. Fermanis received a Purple Heart for his injuries in the attack and the

Air Force Achievement Medal Third Oak Leaf cluster for his actions after the attack. Id. ¶¶ 15–

16; see also id., Exs. D (Fermanis’s Purple Heart Certificate), E (Fermanis’s Air Force

Achievement Medal Certificate). When he retuned home, Fermanis immediately started to

experience symptoms of PTSD. Id. ¶ 19. He started to feel “intense discomfort” in large

crowds, which impacted his relationships because he did not like being in large gatherings and

social settings. Id. ¶ 20. Fermanis is rated by the VA as 60% disabled for PTSD, knee injuries,

and tinnitus caused by the attack. Id. ¶¶ 21–22, Exs. F (Fermanis’s VA Rated Disabilities), G

(Fermanis’s VA Medical Records).

6. Kevin Richard Mall

Kevin Richard Mall was serving as a Senior Airman Munitions Craftsman in the United

States Air Force on June 25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers. Decl. of Kevin Richard Mall

(Sept. 12, 2022) (“K. Mall Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 43-1. When the attack hit, he was in his dorm

room lying on his bed when a “huge explosion” occurred and he was thrown from his bed into

14
the lockers across the room. Id. ¶ 6. Mall sustained abrasions to his hands and feet and his feet

were bleeding from the glass shards in his boots. Id. ¶ 8. He assisted with rescue operations and

helped injured personnel, for which he received the Air Force Achievement Medal. Id. ¶ 11; see

also id., Ex. D (Mall’s Air Force Achievement Medal Certificate). He also assisted with

recovery efforts in the weeks after the attack, retrieving bodies of fellow servicemembers and

preparing caskets for return flights back to the United States, for which he received the Air Force

Achievement Medal First Oak Leaf Cluster. Id. ¶ 14; see also id., Ex. E (Mall’s Air Force

Achievement Medal First Oak Leaf Cluster Certificate). These duties caused Mall “severe

emotional distress, horrifying nightmares, and paranoia.” Id. ¶ 15. He was eventually diagnosed

with PTSD, became verbally and emotionally abusive to his family, used alcohol to cope with

his anger. Id. ¶¶ 15, 22. Mall is rated as 100% disabled by the VA due to his injuries from the

attack and he still stuffers from PTSD, sleep apnea, anxiety, an irritable colon, and permanent

laceration scars on his feet from the attack. Id. ¶¶ 23–25; see also id., Ex. I (Mall’s VA

Disability Rating).

7. John Charles Orlando, Jr. and One Family Member

On June 25, 1996, John Charles Orlando, Jr. was serving as a Staff Sergeant in the Air

Force and was housed at the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Decl. of John

Charles Orlando, Jr. (May 20, 2022) (“J. Orlando Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-1. On the night of the

attack, he was watching television in a room on the first floor of a targeted building when he saw

a “large flash of light” and heard a “loud explosion.” Id. ¶ 7. He next remembers laying on the

floor and his ears ringing. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. As he left the room and headed towards the dining hall, he

noticed blood coming from his left calf and found a deep shrapnel wound. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. Orlando

was awarded a Purple Heart for his injuries. Id. ¶ 10; see also id., Ex. D (Orlando’s Purple Heart

Certificate). After his injuries were treated, a commander asked that he console members of his

15
unit. Id. ¶ 11. The enormity of the task overwhelmed Orlando with grief and he “broke down

crying uncontrollably.” Id. He then consoled and prayed with numerous people, for which he

was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal First Osak Leaf Cluster. Id. ¶ 12; see also id.,

Ex. E (Orlando’s Air Force Commendation Medal First Osak Leaf Cluster Certificate). For the

first six months after the attack, Orlando had “vivid flashbacks of the wounded people, broken

items, shattered glass, and the desperation on everyone’s face that night.” Id. ¶ 17. The injuries

that he suffered changed him forever and negatively impact his quality of life. Id. ¶¶ 22–23. He

continues to suffer from nerve damage in his leg, which is agitated when his left leg comes into

contact with anything, and resulted in his 10% disabled rating from the VA. Id. ¶ 22; see also

id., Ex. G (Orlando’s VA Benefits Letter).

Orlando’s spouse, Ursula Leona Orlando first learned about the attack when she returned

home from work and saw the news on television, which “shocked, stunned, overwhelmed, and

worried” her. Id. Decl. of Ursula Leona Orlando (May 20, 2022) (“U. Orlando Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6,

ECF No. 43-1. She received a call from someone in her husband’s unit to tell her that his

whereabouts were unknown and she was “beside [herself], beyond distraught” until she finally

heard from her husband the next day. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. Ursula Orlando’s worldview changed after the

attack, and she has not felt as safe since. Id. ¶ 14. She and her husband are more “guarded and

cautious” and she “experienced a loss of innocence.” Id.

8. Kenneth David Weaver and Five Family Members

Kenneth David Weaver was serving as a Torpedo Mate 2nd Class Master-at-Arms in the

U.S. Navy and was temporarily housed at the Khobar Towers complex on June 25, 1996, as he

and his unit awaited the arrival of another naval ship. Decl. of Kenneth David Weaver (Apr. 27,

2022) (“K. Weaver Decl.”) ¶¶ 6, 8, ECF No. 43-1. On the night of the attack, he was evacuating

the building because a fire alarm had sounded minutes before the bombing. Id. ¶ 9. The “force

16
of the blast knocked [him] off [his] feet” and threw him to the ground, which injured his back

and head, and shards of shrapnel lacerated his body. Id. ¶ 10. Soon after the attack, Weaver

began having sleep issues and nightmares about the bombing. Id. ¶ 16. When he returned to

regular duty on his ship, his injuries began to impact his job performance, and he was often tense

and anxious. Id. ¶ 20; see also id., Ex. D (Weaver’s Enlisted Evaluation Report). Due to his

continual decline in job performance, Weaver’s enlistment in the Navy was canceled. Id. ¶¶ 22–

23. He still suffers from physical pain and trauma from the attack, and the VA has rated him as

40% disabled due to degenerative arthritis in his spine. Id. ¶¶ 26–29; see also id., Ex. I

(Weaver’s VA Rated Disabilities).

Weaver’s sister Susan Pauline Pomoransky, learned about the attack from her brother

who heard on the news that the Khobar Towers had been attacked, and she was “very upset and

worried.” Decl. of Susan Pauline Pomoransky (Apr. 19, 2022) (“S. Pomoransky Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6,

ECF No. 43-1. Once she learned that her brother was safe, she was relieved, but still worried

about him. Id. ¶ 7. Since the attack, the communication between Susan Pomoransky and her

brother has decreased significantly, and he became distant. Id. ¶ 9. The attack negatively

affected their relationship, and they have ultimately grown apart. Id. ¶ 15.

Weaver’s other sister, Vickie Rena Weaver Anthony, learned about the attack from a

phone call from her sister and was “shocked” and “felt sick to [her] stomach.” Decl. of Vickie

Rena Weaver Anthony (Apr. 19, 2022) (“V. Anthony Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1. After

some days, she finally learned that her brother was alive but injured, which was “terrifying” to

her. Id. ¶ 8. When her brother returned home, Vickie Anthony felt like her brother became a

stranger and the distance between them grew. Id. ¶ 12. Her brother’s behavior worsened over

the years and the strength of their relationship deteriorated. Id. ¶ 17.

17
 Weaver’s brother, Clinton Edward Weaver, learned about the attack from a brief phone

call with one of his sisters and this left him “feeling very upset and with so many questions.”

Decl. of Clinton Edward Weaver (Oct. 27, 2022) (“C. Weaver Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1. He

was relieved to learn that his brother was safe, but when Clinton Weaver finally spoke to his

brother, he could tell how traumatic the attack was. Id. ¶ 9. When his brother finally returned

home, Clinton Weaver saw a change in his relationship with his brother; although they used to

talk frequently, they communicated less after the attack and “[their] relationship became

strained.” Id. ¶ 14. Clinton Weaver has endured “great sadness” watching his brother suffer, and

he mourns the toll the attack has taken on their relationship. Id. ¶¶ 15–16.

Weaver’s brother, Donald Lee Heikes, received a call from a sister with news of the

attacked while he was at work. Decl. of Donald Lee Heikes (Apr. 19, 2022) (“D. Heikes Decl.”)

¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1. Donald Heikes was “overwhelmed with various emotions” while he was

waiting for more information about his brother’s condition. Id. ¶ 8. Even though he eventually

got to speak with his brother and assured himself that his brother was safe, his “worries about

him continued” while he was away. Id. ¶ 9. Donald Heikes was close to his brother before the

attack, but “nothing was ever the same again . . . after” due to his brother’s short temper,

difficulty sleeping, decreased communication, and need to get help. Id. ¶¶ 10, 13, 17.

Weaver’s brother, Roger Dayle Heikes, learned about the attack from his sister several

days after it occurred. Decl. of Roger Dayle Heikes (Oct. 27, 2022) (“R. Heikes Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6,

ECF No. 43-1. Although he learned that his brother was safe, he “continued to fear for his

safety.” Id. ¶¶ 6–7. After his brother was discharged from the Navy, their reunion was

“disheartening and disappointing” because their once-close relationship changed due to his

18
brother’s “emotional wall.” Id. ¶¶ 12–13. Roger Heikes is saddened by what the attack did to

his brother, and he speaks with him much less frequently since then. Id. ¶ 14.

9. Ronald Scott Gering

Ronald Scott Gering was serving as an electronics system switching specialist in the Air

Force stationed at the Khobar Towers complex on June 25, 1996. Decl. of Ronald Scott Gering

(Jan. 25, 2022) (“R. Gering Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 43-1. On the day of the attack, he was in his

dorm room and felt an “enormous explosion” that “knocked [him] to [his] knees.” Id. ¶ 6. He

quickly evacuated the building, while helping others similarly navigate over “layers of shattered

glass,” id. ¶ 7, and waited in an underground garage for approximately four hours in case of a

second bombing, id. ¶¶ 9–10. In the days after the attack, Gering worked to rebuild the

complex’s hospital computer system, which was desperately needed to order medical supplies,

for which his efforts earned him an Air Force Achievement Medal with Valor. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13; see

also id., Ex. E (Gering’s Air Force Achievement Medal with Valor Certificate). When he

returned to the United States, he was relieved to be reunited with his family, but he still suffers

from anxiety, hypervigilance, trouble sleeping, and difficulty maintaining relationships. Id. ¶¶

16–23. Gering was later diagnosed with PTSD and tinnitus, leaving him 40% disabled according

to the VA. Id. ¶¶ 8, 17; see also id., Exs. D (Gering’s VA Rated Disabilities), F (Gering’s

Mental Health Consultation Notes), H (Gering’s VA Benefits Letter).

10. Aubree Brooke Staricka

Aubree Brooke Staricka was serving as an Airman in the United States Air Force on June

25, 1996. Decl. of Aubree Brooke Staricka (Mar. 29, 2022) (“A. Staricka Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No.

43-1. She was riding in a government vehicle returning to the Khobar Towers at the time of the

attack when she “saw a huge flash of light and a massive explosion.” Id. ¶ 6. She sprinted into

the targeted buildings, attempting to find friends and aiding the injured, until she was ordered

19
back to her station away from the Towers in case of another bombing. Id. ¶¶ 7–11. The

following day, she learned that her ex-boyfriend and ten friends died in the attack, and the

realization that she could have been among them multiplied her grief. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10, 14. Staricka

remained in a “state of depression and shock” even after returning home to Florida a week later.

Id. ¶¶ 15. She was diagnosed with PTSD and sleep apnea following the attack, resulting in a

90% disabled rating by the VA. Id. ¶¶ 19–21; see also id., Exs. G (Staricka’s PTSD Diagnosis),

H (Staricka’s VA Rating Decision Letter), I (Staricka’s Medical Record). She also suffers from

“debilitating insomnia, constant anxiety, polarizing highs and lows, uncontrollable paranoia, and

relentless survivor’s guilt and depression.” Id. ¶ 20.

11. Brent Alan Mullings and Four Family Members

Brent Alan Mullings was serving as an Airman First Class in the Air Force on June 25,

1996. Decl. of Brent Allen Mullings (Aug. 5, 2022) (“B. Mullings Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-1.

Mullings was working at a security post in the Khobar Towers complex when he “saw a bright

flash, heard a loud explosion, and felt the powerful blast wave painfully surge through [his]

body.” Id. ¶¶ 7–8. As chaos unfolded around him, Mullings kept to his assigned security post

for the duration of his shift, “preparing to defend against the [a]ttack.” Id. ¶ 10. He continued in

that security patrol position in the days after the bombing, for which he earned the Armed Forces

Expeditionary Medal. Id. ¶¶ 13–14; see also id., Ex. D (Mullings’s Armed Forces Expeditionary

Medal Certificate). Mulling has suffered from nightmares, flashbacks, anxiety, depression,

short-term memory loss, suicidal ideation, and difficulty maintaining relationships and

employment. Id. ¶¶ 18–24. The VA rated him as 100% disabled from PTSD directly caused by

the attack. Id. ¶ 26; see also id., Exs. G (Mulling’s PTSD Diagnosis Report), H (Mulling’s VA

Rating Decision Letter).

20
 Mullings’s spouse, Tina Marie Mullings, learned of the attack on the news and was

“instantly scared and shocked.” Decl. of Tina Marie Mullings (Aug. 5, 2022) (“T. Mullings

Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1. Her husband called hours later, which “relieved” her, but her lack

of information about his continued safety made her “an emotional wreck.” Id. ¶ 7. In the

aftermath of the attack, Tina Mullings has struggled psychologically and has had to adapt to her

husband’s changed demeanor. Id. ¶ 13. To this day, she faces the daily challenges associated

with her husband’s injuries and anticipates it will continue for the rest of her life. Id. ¶ 14.

Mullings’s mother, Gloria Ann Mullings was told by her husband, who arrived

unexpectedly at her job, about the bombing and she was “shocked” and “terribly frightened for

[her] son.” Decl. of Gloria Ann Mullings (Aug. 16, 2022) (“G. Mullings Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–7, ECF

No. 43-1. When she found out her son was safe, she was happy but “heartbroken knowing that

he was going through such a horrible situation across the world.” Id. ¶ 8. Since the attack, the

emotional needs of both her son and her husband, a Vietnam War veteran, have taken a toll on

her physically and psychologically. Id. ¶ 11, 15.

Mullings’s father, Vernon Oscar Mullings learned about the attack from his daughter and

he “was shak[en], scared, and devastated by the news.” Decl. of Vernon Oscar Mullings (Aug.

16, 2022) (“V. Mullings Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1. He was relieved when he heard from

Tina Mullings about his son, but the lack of information about his son’s continued safety caused

him stress. Id. ¶ 7. In the years after the attack, watching his son struggle triggered Vernon

Mullings’s PTSD symptoms following his service in the Vietnam War, resulting in Vernon

Mullings’s wife leaving her job to care for him. Id. ¶ 12.

Mullings’s sister, Heather Maureen Hector, learned of the attack from a friend and the

memory of her family’s worry awaiting word on her brother’s safety was devastating. Decl. of

21
Heather Maureen Hector (Oct. 6, 2022) (“H. Hector Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–7, ECF No. 43-1. She was

happy that her brother was safe, but she continued to worry until his return home. Id. ¶¶ 7–8.

Since the attack, Heather Hector has suffered watching her brother cope with his physical and

psychological difficulties and her father’s reignited PTSD. Id. ¶¶ 16–19.

12. Sy William Yost and One Family Member

Sy William Yost was serving as a Major and Section Chief in the United States Air Force

on June 25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers. Decl. of Sy William Yost (June 11, 2022)

(“S. Yost Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-1. At the time of the attack, he had returned to his room when

he started to feel the building shake and then a “blast surge[d] through the building.” Id. ¶ 7.

Yost was knocked unconscious, and when he awoke, he was covered in glass, his head and arm

were bleeding, and his ears were ringing. Id. After exiting the building, he assisted in the search

for survivors at the bomb site where one of his colleagues “died of his wounds in [his] arms.” Id.

¶ 9. Yost eventually received stitches in his elbow, nose, and chin at the triage center, and he

had many bruises and scrapes all over his body, including a laceration on his scalp. Id. ¶ 10. He

was awarded a Purple Heart for his injuries, id. ¶ 10; see also id., Ex. F. (Yost’s Purple Heart

Certificate), as well as the Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor for his actions after the

attack, id. ¶ 9; see also id., Ex. E (Yost’s Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor

Certificate). After the attack, Yost suffered from constant irritation, indifference, difficulty

socializing, and sleeping. Id. ¶¶ 19–20. He was diagnosed by the VA as 90% of the 100%

disabled with PTSD, sleep apnea, and tinnitus caused by the attack. Id. ¶¶ 22–23; see also id.,

Exs. G (Yost’s Medical Treatment Record for PTSD), H (Yost’s Medical Treatment Record for

Tinnitus), I (Yost’s VA Rated Disabilities).

Yost’s then fiancée and now spouse, Maria Star Yost, learned of the attack while at work;

she “felt so distraught” and started crying. Decl. of Maria Star Yost (June 11, 2022) (“M. Yost

22
Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–7, ECF No. 43-1. She heard from her fiancée’s parents that he was alive the next

day, and when she finally spoke to him two days after the bombing, she was “very emotional.”

Id. ¶¶ 8–9. When Yost returned home, he and Maria Yost finally married, but she noticed a

change in her now-husband’s behavior: “[he] wanted to be alone more often and did not want to

go out to do anything.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 12–13. She has also experienced “fatigue and emotional stress”

in their marriage and has not had a “carefree day” since the attack. Id. ¶ 18.

13. Three Family Members of Airman Clayton Omar Zook

Clayton Omar Zook, an Airman in the United States Air Force quartered at the Khobar

Towers at the time of the attack, was a plaintiff in Christie, 2020 WL 3606273, at *4. He was

awarded $7 million in damages as a result of his pain and suffering. Id. at *24. Zook’s

stepsisters, Serena Elizabeth Douglass and Sarah Grace Douglass, and stepfather, Steven Millard

Douglass, are plaintiffs in this action. Decl. of Serena Elizabeth Douglass (Dec. 27, 2021) (“S.

Elizabeth Douglass Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 4, ECF No. 43-1; Decl. of Sarah Grace Douglass (Dec. 23,

2021) (“S. Grace Douglass Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 4, ECF No. 43-1; Decl. of Steven Millard Douglass

(Jan. 3, 2022) (“S. Millard Douglass Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 4, ECF No. 43-1.

Serena Elizabeth Douglass learned about the attack at age fourteen from her father and

stepmother and she was “instantly nervous” and unequipped to handle such a stressful and

traumatic event. S. Elizabeth Douglass Decl. ¶ 6. She was relieved to hear that he was safe, but

when he returned home, she noticed that her brother was more withdrawn and spent less time

around her. Id. ¶¶ 6, 12. “Stress and fear have consumed [her] life”, and she has sought

professional help to deal with her depression and anxiety that have developed because of the

attack. Id. ¶ 13.

Sarah Grace Douglass learned about the attack from her parents and lived “in a constant

state of anxiety” for days. S. Grace Douglass Decl.¶¶ 6–7. After the attack, the connection

23
between Sarah Douglass and her brother dissipated, and she started to “experience severe

depression due to Clayton’s rejection of [her].” Id. ¶¶ 11, 13. She has sought professional help

for her anxiety and depression, but her brother’s injuries from the attack continue to impact her

and her entire family. Id. ¶ 13.

Steven Millard Douglass learned about the attack after his wife answered a phone call

from Clayton who told her about the attack. S. Millard Douglass Decl. ¶ 8. He felt “sick to [his]

stomach” because he “knew something terrible must have happened.” Id. Their relationship

never returned to normal after the attack, and he continues to mourn the loss of his son’s

detachment from him. Id. ¶ 10.

14. Joey Laurier Morrissette and Two Family Members

Joey Laurier Morrissette was serving as an Airman First Class in the Air Force on June

25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers. Decl. of Joey Laurier Morrissette (Oct. 19, 2022) (“J.

Morrissette Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-1. When the attack happened, he was in his room when he

“heard a loud explosion” and “felt a shockwave of pressure.” Id. ¶ 7. As he tried to escape the

building without shoes, his feet were “getting shredded by the shards of shattered glass that

covered the floor.” Id. ¶ 9. The fact that he was so close to the bomb site left him “in shock”

and feeling “confused, tense, unsettled, worried, concerned, and nervous.” Id. ¶ 12. After the

attack, he was tasked with clearing glass, debris, and blood, and he loaded injured

servicemembers onto planes to Germany to seek treatment—actions that earned him the Air

Force Achievement Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the Air Force

Certification of Appreciation. Id. ¶ 17; see also id., Exs. D (Morrissette’s Air Force

Achievement Medal Certificate), E (Morrissette’s Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal

Certificate), F (Morrissette’s Air Force Certification of Appreciation Certificate). For his

injuries, he was offered a Purple Heart, but he declined it because he did not think he was

24
deserving. Id. ¶ 13. The chaos and horror that he witnessed during and right after the attack

“continue to haunt [him] today.” Id. ¶ 18. He previously attempted suicide and spent a brief

time in a hospital psychiatric unit. Id. ¶ 20. He suffers from PTSD, leaving him 100% disabled,

as rated by the VA. Id. ¶ 24; see also id., Exs. G (Morrissette’s VA Decision Letter), H

(Morrissette’s PTSD Diagnosis).

Morrissette’s mother, Diane Theresa Morrissette, heard about the attack from a friend and

she felt “helpless, angry, and terrified.” Decl. of Diane Theresa Morrissette (June 19, 2022) (“D.

Morrissette Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1. When he returned from Saudi Arabia, Diana

Morrissette’s son came to live with her and her husband and she “could really see the changes in

him” that caused him to “struggle[] emotionally and psychologically.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 11. She is

“consumed with worry and anxiety about [her son] all the time” as it has been very difficult for

her and her family since the attack. Id. ¶ 13.

Morrissette’s sister, Natasha Kami Morrissette, heard about the attack from her mother

and she “will never forget the horrible feeling that came over [her].” Decl. of Natasha Kami

Morrissette (June 18, 2022) (“N. Morrissette Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-1. She was very close

with her brother before the attack, but when he came home after the attack, he was very different.

Id. ¶¶ 9, 11. She had to take time off from work to take care of her brother and this caused her a

“significant amount of anxiety and sleep issues.” Id. ¶ 12.

15. Nathan Elliott Wheat and One Family Member

Nathan Elliott Wheat was serving as an Airman First Class in the United States Air Force

on June 25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers. Decl. of Nathan Elliott Wheat (Sept. 8, 2022)

(“N. Wheat Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-2. He was in a common area of one of the affected

building when an explosion “with a blast force so strong that it launched [him] into the air and

crashed [him] down onto the couch.” Id. ¶ 7. He began to assist with the rescue efforts until

25
“severe pain in [his] knee and back” forced him to seek medical care—these injuries resulted in

his award of a Purple Heart. Id. ¶ 11; see also id., Ex. D (Wheat’s Purple Heart Certificate).

Following the bombing, Wheat assisted fellow servicemembers and returned to his post as a

Security Police officer, earning an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. Id. ¶ 15; see also id., Ex.

F (Wheat’s Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal Certificate). He was eventually medically

discharged from the Air Force because he was not able to tolerate physical therapy and exercise

to rehabilitate his injuries. Id. ¶ 18; see also id., Ex. G (Wheat’s Recommendation for Correction

of Military Records). Wheat is rated by the VA as 40% disabled for his back injury, and he can

no longer participate in many of the physical activities he used to enjoy. Id. ¶ 21; see also id.,

Exs. H (Wheat’s VA Rated Disabilities), I (Wheat’s VA Benefits Letter).

Wheat’s father, Donald Allen Wheat, was “so scared and worried” when he found out

about the attack from his wife. Decl. of Donald Allen Wheat (Aug. 29, 2022) (“D. Wheat

Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-2. When he found out that his son was injured, the “pain, anguish,

and helplessness” that he felt were “impossible to describe.” Id. ¶ 7. After the attack, his son

was “noticeably different” and they were not able to enjoy activities together as they did in the

past. Id. ¶ 18. Seeing his son struggle has “taken a toll on [him],” and he has a lot of guilt for

what his son experienced during the attack. Id.

16. Vincent Gene Oliver and One Family Member

Vincent Gene Oliver was serving as a Staff Sergeant in the United States Air Force on

June 25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers. Decl. of Vincent Gene Oliver (June 23, 2022)

(“V. Oliver Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-2. He was dozing off in his suite when a loud explosion and

“wall of high-pressure air” forced him awake; then the glass doors in front of him shattered and

glass pierced his legs. Id. ¶ 7. Although he “was in shock,” he made his way to a temporary

triage center where the glass was removed from his legs and feet, leaving permanent scars. Id.

26
¶¶ 7–8, 10. In recognition of his injuries, Oliver was awarded a Purple Heart. Id. ¶ 8; see also

id., Ex. D (Oliver’s Purple Heart Certificate). Following the attack, he was discharged from the

military because he was “not psychologically capable of deploying.” Id. ¶ 17. He then began

seeing a therapist who diagnosed him with PTSD as a result of the attack. Id. ¶ 18; see also id.,

Ex. G (Oliver’s Medical Records). Oliver has been left with “a very distressed and anguished

life.” Id. ¶ 19. He continues to have ringing in his ears and is rated as 10% disabled by the VA

for tinnitus. Id. ¶ 9; see also id., Ex. E (Oliver’s VA Disabilities Record).

Oliver’s spouse, Tamara Lee Oliver, learned about the attack on the news and then “fell

to [her] knees crying hysterically” and began praying. Decl. of Tamara Lee Oliver (June 16,

2022) (“T. Oliver Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 10, ECF No. 43-2. Since the attack, her husband has struggled to

maintain employment, which has been “psychologically and emotionally draining for [her].” Id.

¶ 17. Her life has become more complicated because of the negative impact that the attack has

had on her husband. Id.

17. Steven Lee Brodt and Three Family Members

Steven Lee Brodt served as a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer in the Air Force on June

25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers. Decl. of Steven Lee Brodt (Jan. 24, 2022) (“S. Brodt

Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-2. He was watching television on the night of the attack when “glass

shards from the nearby window blew across the room and tore through [his] body.” Id. ¶ 7. He

had a laceration on his right foot that was “bleeding profusely,” and he struggled to leave the

building quickly because of the pain in his foot. Id. ¶¶ 7–9. He self-treated his injuries because

he thought it was more important for others to get help, and as a result, the laceration on his foot

kept opening, leaving him with a scar; he was awarded a Purple Heart for his injuries. Id. ¶ 10.

Even after returning home, Brodt continued to experience psychological issues including trouble

sleeping, hypervigilance, and social isolation. Id. ¶ 15. His doctors diagnosed him with PTSD,

27
and his daily life is now “dominated by [] symptoms of PTSD.” Id. ¶¶ 15, 17. Brodt did not

claim to be determined disabled by the VA.

Brodt’s spouse, Un Suk Brodt, learned about the attack when her husband called to tell

her what had happened and she was “struck with so many emotions” and “uncertain of what

could happen next.” Decl. of Un Suk Brodt (Mar. 30, 2022) (“U. Brodt Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–7, ECF

No. 43-2. When her husband eventually returned home, she “was shocked” to see the severity of

his injury. Id. ¶ 9. It has been “very distressing” to see such significant changes in her

husband’s demeanor, which have also changed the dynamics of their relationship. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.

She has “suffered the emotional loss of [her] husband” given his experience at Khobar Towers.

Id. ¶ 15.

Brodt’s son, Steven Han Brodt, heard about the attack from his dad over the phone, and

he “could not comprehend the scale of it back then.” Decl. of Steven Han Brodt (Mar. 17, 2022)

(“S. Han Brodt Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–7, ECF No. 43-2. After his father returned home from the attack,

he came to notice that his father was not the same person anymore. Id. ¶ 11. His father was

“always on high alert” and his “home environment became stressful.” Id. ¶ 12. He felt like he

became “the parent caring for the injured child” when he would console his father after he

became distraught talking about the attack. Id. ¶ 13.

Brodt’s son, Samuel John Brodt, spoke to his father briefly after the attack and was

“scared and worried.” Decl. of Samuel John Brodt (Apr. 14, 2022) (“S. John Brodt Decl.”) ¶¶ 3,

6, ECF No. 43-2. After the attack, his father “was acting strangely”—he would not want Samuel

Brodt or other family members—to be out of his sight for fear that something would happen,

which frustrated and angered Samuel Brodt. Id. ¶ 13. As he got older, Samuel Brodt “realize[d]

how much of [his] dad [he] lost because of the [a]ttack.” Id. ¶ 15.

28
 18. The Estate of Steven Peter Goff and Three Family Members

Steven Peter Goff was a Captain and flight surgeon in the Air Force in Dhahran, Saudi

Arabia at the Khobar Towers complex on June 25, 1996. Decl. of Shirley Ann Goff (Oct. 5,

2021) (“S. Goff Decl.”) ¶ 7, ECF No. 43-2; see also id., Ex. G (Goff’s Military Discharge

Certificate). Goff has since passed away and his estate is represented by his mother Shirley Ann

Goff, also a plaintiff in this action, and his father Gerald Goff. Id. ¶¶ 3–4, 6. Goff spent hours

following the attack providing life-saving medical care to more than 200 people, for which he

was awarded the Airman’s Medal and the Meritorious Service Medal. Id. ¶ 13; see also id., Exs.

J (Goff’s Airman’s Medal Certificate), K (Goff’s Meritorious Service Medal Certificate). He

also sustained a “large shard of glass [that] had gored through his chest” as well as glass through

his hands, feet, legs, and shoulders. Id. ¶ 11; see also id., Ex. O (Goff’s Operation Report

regarding a surgery on his left shoulder). He received a Purple Heart for his injuries. Id. ¶ 12;

see id., Ex. I (Goff’s Purple Heart Certificate). Goff was not the same person when he returned

home; he was reserved, quiet, and withdrawn, id. ¶ 18, and he expressed suffering from difficulty

sleeping and depression, id. ¶¶ 19, 23; see id., Ex. P (Goff’s Medical Records describing eye

injury and depression from the attack). Despite receiving psychological treatment, Goff

“succumbed to the mental anguish and extreme emotional pain” from the attack and died by

suicide ten years after the bombing. Id. ¶ 24; see also id., Ex. R. (Steven Peter Goff Casualty

Report).

Goff’s mother, Shirley Ann Goff, found out about the attack while at home with a

neighbor who mentioned that something had happened at the Khobar Towers. Id. ¶ 8. She was

“stressed and panicked” and “felt helpless” not knowing if her son was alive for two days until

he was able to call her. Id. ¶¶ 8–11. After the attack, it became difficult for her to maintain a

close relationship with her son because he “closed himself off emotionally,” and witnessing

29
those drastic changes caused her depression for which she sought treatment. Id. ¶ 19. Her son

told her that “he was suffering from extreme emotional distress.” Id. ¶ 23. Shirley Goff stated

that she “will never be the same after losing [her] son.” Id. ¶ 26.

Goff’s sister, Antoinette Marie Hovel, learned about the attack when her parents phoned

her about news of the attack and she “was so scared and worried about [her] brother.” Decl. of

Antoinette Marie Hovel (Oct. 6, 2022) (“A. Hovel Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-2. When Goff

returned home from the attack, there “was little joy in [him],” and seeing him suffer “hurt

[Antoinette Hovel] terribly.” Id. ¶ 11. She feels “an immense amount of guilt and sadness” that

she did not recognize the extent of her brother’s struggles before he took his own life. Id. ¶ 16.

Goff’s sister, Kathryn Mary Ableidinger, was at work when she learned about the attack

on television, and she was “worried and panicked” that her brother was there. Decl. of Kathryn

Mary Ableidinger (Sept. 28, 2022) (“K. Ableidinger Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-2. When she

finally got to see him after the attack, she saw his wounds and “it made [her] very sad to think

about the pain he must have endured to have a wound that severe.” Id. ¶ 10. Communication

between her and her brother decreased after the attack, and he became “withdrawn, quiet, and

emotionally pulled away from the family.” Id. ¶ 11. She is “devastated” by her brother’s

passing and “struggle[s] every day with guilt and sadness” for not being able to help him cope

with the pain he experienced from the attack. Id. ¶ 16.

19. James Michael Silvi and Three Family Members

James Michael Silvi served as a First Sergeant in the United States Air Force at the

Khobar Towers complex on June 25, 1996. Decl. of James Michael Silvi (Dec. 30, 2021) (“J.

Silvi Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-2; see also id., Ex. C (Silvi’s Military Discharge Certificate).

When the attack happened, he was reading on a couch when the curtains were sucked out of the

window, he saw a “flash of bright light,” heard a loud boom, and was “catapulted from the couch

30
and slammed into a concrete wall” and left covered in body lacerations from shrapnel and glass.

Id. ¶ 7. The lacerations on his feet and injuries to his head were so severe that he “had to be

carried out of the building by two men.” Id. ¶ 10. Silvi received a Purple Heart for his injuries.

Id. ¶ 12; see also id., Ex. D (Silvi’s Purple Heart Certificate). Despite his injuries, Silvi “worked

through the night” to account for personnel and contact their families as well as clear debris and

help retrieve items for the servicemembers, actions that earned him the Air Force Achievement

Medal Third Oak Leaf Cluster with Valor. Id. ¶ 14; see also id., Ex. E (Silvi’s Air Force

Achievement Medal Third Oak Leaf Cluster with Valor Certificate). He also spent evenings

conducting wellness checks on Airmen, which earned him the Air Force Commendation Medal

First Oak Leaf Cluster. Id. ¶ 17; see also id., Ex. F (Silvi’s Air Force Commendation Medal

First Oak Leaf Cluster Certificate). After the attack, he “felt [himself] shift into a different

person,” becoming more guarded and serious. Id. ¶ 18. Symptoms of PTSD, such as anxiety

and hypervigilance, “still plague [him] today.” Id. ¶ 19; see also id., Ex. G (Silvi’s Medical

Examination for PTSD). He is rated as 90% disabled by the VA for the injuries he sustained

during the attack, including residual scarring on his head and permanent nerve damage, plantar

fasciitis in his right foot, tinnitus, PTSD, and sleep apnea. Id. ¶ 21; see also id., Exs. G (Silvi’s

Medical Examination for PTSD), H (Silvi’s VA Rated Disabilities), I (Silvi’s VA Benefits

Letter).

Silvi’s spouse, Jo Ann Silvi, was at home when her daughter told her that she saw a news

report of a bombing at the Khobar Towers complex and upon seeing the report, Jo Ann Silvi

“became hysterical.” Decl. of Jo Ann Silvi (Dec. 30, 2021) (“J. Ann Silvi Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF

No. 43-2. When her husband returned home two weeks after the attack, he “instantly seemed

different to [her]” because of his changed demeanor and “general appearance of sadness.” Id. ¶¶

31
13–14. The attack “has had a lasting impact on [their] marriage” and their joy has been replaced

with “feelings of guilt and sorrow.” Id. ¶ 18.

Silvi’s daughter, Angela Christine Silvi, learned of the attack and “became extremely

upset and worried that [her] father had been killed.” Decl. of Angela Christine Silvi (Dec. 30,

2021) (“A. Silvi Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 8, ECF No. 43-2. Upon his return, she noticed that he had a short

temper and was very impatient with her. Id. ¶ 12. She had to learn how to “navigate around his

new behavior to maintain [their] relationship.” Id. ¶ 13. The attack ultimately “robbed [her] of

the close relationship that [she] had with him.” Id. ¶ 14.

Silvi’s daughter, Alison Elizabeth Silvi, learned about the attack when she saw it on the

news and watching her mom panic “frightened [her] even more.” Decl. of Alison Elizabeth Silvi

(Dec. 30, 2021) (“A. Elizabeth Silvi Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–7, ECF No. 43-2. It was a “traumatizing

day” at such a young age, and “[she] experienced emotions no 11-year-old should.” Id. ¶ 9.

When she reached a more mature age, her father explained to her what had happened on the day

of the attack, and “it haunts [her] to this day . . . how scared [her] dad must have been.” Id. ¶ 14.

She has endured “a lot of confusion, fear, and stress because of the [a]ttack.” Id. ¶ 15.

20. David Anthony Toole and Two Family Members

David Anthony Toole served as an Airman First Class in the United States Air Force at

the Khobar Towers complex on June 25, 1996. Decl. of David Anthony Toole (Dec. 23, 2021)

(“D. Toole Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-2. Before the attack, he was in his room when he “heard a

loud explosion, and the doors in [his] room were blown off their hinges.” Id. ¶ 7. He was

“thrown across” the room and when he regained his senses, he realized that his ears were ringing

and that he had lacerations on his head and back. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. When he made it to a triage center,

he had the pieces of glass in his back removed and the wounds to his head sutured; he received a

Purple Heart for these injuries. Id. ¶ 11; see also id., Ex. D (Toole’s Purple Heart Certificate).

32
Once he returned home, he had terrible nightmares and “the thoughts of bombings and

explosions consumed [him].” Id. ¶ 14. He also suffered from severe psychological injuries from

the attack, id. ¶¶ 25, which led him to resign from the Air Force, yet he continued to suffer from

“severe anxiety, memory loss, and sleep impairment,” id. ¶¶ 27–28. The attack “has been the

biggest stressor in [his] life,” and he still carries “the emotional scars of both the terror that [he]

experienced and the horror that [he] witnessed.” Id. ¶ 30. The VA rated him as 60% disabled

for PTSD and tinnitus. Id. ¶ 29; see also id., Ex. H (Toole’s VA Decision Letter).

Toole’s stepmother, Michele Ann Canchola, learned of the attack when Toole called to

inform her of his safety, and she was “so scared at how he sounded.” Decl. of Michele Ann

Canchola (Jan. 3, 2022) (“M. Canchola Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 5, ECF No. 43-2. When he returned home,

“he began to distance himself from [her] emotionally . . . which was heartbreaking.” Id. ¶¶ 7–8.

She noticed a “shift in [their] relationship” after the attack and they did not communicate as

regularly, which made Michele Canchola “feel depressed and anxious, [and] not sure how to help

[her] son.” Id. ¶ 17. Her “family’s quality of life has been severely diminished due to the

[a]ttack and the trauma that resulted.” Id. ¶ 20.

Toole’s stepfather, Timothy Louis Canchola, who is married to Toole’s stepmother,

Michele Canchola, learned about the attack when Toole called to tell his stepmother that he was

okay, which relieved Timothy Canchola, but he “felt very scared and nervous for David.” Decl.

of Timothy Louis Canchola (Jan. 3, 2022) (“T. Canchola Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-2. When

Toole returned home, “[h]e could not fit back into the family like before, and [their] relationship

suffered because of it.” Id. ¶ 9. Timothy Canchola is “overwhelmed with guilt” remembering

that he is the one who encouraged David Toole to enlist in the military. Id. ¶ 16. He is still

33
“filled with anxiety, depression, and internal conflict” knowing that his son will likely never

recover from the pain caused by the attack. Id. ¶ 17.

21. Franko James Ferguson

On June 25, 1996, Franko James Ferguson was an Airman First Class quartered in the

Khobar Towers complex. Decl. of Franko James Ferguson (Dec. 27, 2021) (“F. Ferguson

Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 43-2. He was waking up for his shift when he “felt a huge shockwave, and

everything went dark.” Id. ¶ 6. He “laid in [his] bed, stunned, disoriented, covered in glass, and

bleeding from lacerations.” Id. ¶ 7. Once he made his way to the triage center, he treated the

“deep lacerations on [his] feet and knees from the glass shrapnel.” Id. ¶ 13. Though eligible,

Ferguson declined a Purple Heart award for his injuries, since he felt undeserving given the

deaths of his close friends from the bombing. Id. He returned home briefly for his father’s

funeral but was sent back to Saudi Arabia soon after. Id. ¶ 17. When he returned home once

again, he “felt anxious and depressed” and “started drinking to self-medicate.” Id. ¶ 18. He and

his wife divorced shortly after his return as he was “no longer emotionally or mentally

available.” Id. ¶ 19. He eventually sought help for his psychological injuries and is rated by the

VA as 30% disabled for PTSD. Id. ¶ 21; see also id., Ex. G (Ferguson’s VA Decision Letter).

22. Six Family Members of Timothy Michael Schomaker

Timothy Michael Schomaker, a Senior Airman in the U.S. Air Force quartered at Khobar

Towers at the time of the attack, was a plaintiff in Christie, 2020 WL 3606273, at *10. He was

awarded $6 million in damages as a result of his pain and suffering. Id. at *24. Six of his family

members are plaintiffs in this action: Schomaker’s wife, Christina Marie Schomaker; mother,

Paula Gail Nott; stepfather, Preston Wade Nott; sister, Kristine Lynnette Schomaker; and

stepsisters, Tanya Lea Nott and Rebecca Lamae Thurman. Decl. of Christina Marie Schomaker

(Sept. 6, 2022) (“C. Schomaker Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 45; Decl. of Paula Gail Nott (Aug. 29,

34
2022) (“P. Nott Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 43-2; Decl. of Preston Wade Nott (Aug. 29, 2022) (“P.

Wade Nott Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 43-2; Decl. of Kristine Lynnette Schomaker (Aug. 29, 2022)

(“K. Schomaker Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 43-2; Decl. of Tanya Lea Nott (Sept. 5, 2022) (“T.

Nott Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 43-2; Decl. of Rebecca Lamae Thurman (Aug. 29, 2022) (“R.

Thurman Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 43-2.

Schomaker’s spouse, Christina Marie Schomaker, was in her dorm room at the Robins

Air Force base on the day of the attack, when she received a phone call from Schomaker, her

then-boyfriend, explaining what happened at the Khobar Towers complex, which “distress[ed]

and sadden[ed]” Christina Schomaker. C. Schomaker Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, 9. When Schomaker

returned home, she had to “adapt[] to his new demeanor,” so she did not trigger or heighten his

emotions. Id. ¶ 13. The couple married on May 23, 1997, almost a year after the bombing. Id.

Christina Schomaker is now “constantly [] mindful” of her husband’s PTSD, and even though he

attended therapy, they “have struggled to maintain a normal lifestyle.” Id. ¶¶ 14–15.

Schomaker’s mother, Paula Gail Nott, found out about the attack while she was at work,

and she was then “in shock and worried sick.” P. Nott Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6. Waiting to hear from her

son was “agonizing.” Id. ¶ 7. In the aftermath of the attack, she “worr[ies] so much more about

Tim” and is “saddened to hear about the injuries that affect [her] son,” which has caused her

“anxiety, panic attacks, sleep issues, and depression” for which she has sought treatment and

medication. Id. ¶¶ 11–12.

Schomaker’s stepfather, Preston Wade Knott, learned about the attack from his wife and

he was “worried about [the] well-being and safety” of his son. P. Wade Nott Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6.

When Schomaker returned home, “[h]e was not the same person” and it “hurt [Preston Knott] to

see him so distressed.” Id. ¶ 8. Preston Knott was “very saddened and anxious” trying to figure

35
out how he could help Schomaker. Id. ¶ 9. He “feel[s] so guilty that [he] had encouraged him to

enlist” and is “saddened that [he] cannot help him overcome the severe emotional injuries that he

sustained” from the attack. Id. ¶¶ 14–15.

Schomaker’s sister, Kristine Lynnette Schomaker, learned about the attack when her

mother phoned and “[t]he thought of losing [her] brother was horrible and left [her] distraught.”

K. Schomaker Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6. She had been close to her brother, but when he came home after the

attack, “[her] eagerness for his return was met with indifference from him.” Id. ¶ 9. Their

relationship “began to dissipate with no explanation and that caused [her] a great deal of

emotional distress.” Id. ¶ 12. When she finally realized that her brother was struggling, she felt

“immense guilt . . . for not being there for him during this very challenging and difficult time.”

Id. ¶ 13.

Schomaker’s stepsister, Tanya Lea Nott, was seventeen years old at the time of the attack

and “did not understand the magnitude of what happened for a while.” T. Nott Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6.

When her brother returned home, she was unaware of the extent of his injuries; she “assumed

that he was no longer interested in [her], and that made [her] very sad.” Id. ¶ 11. She “feel[s]

like [she] failed him” for not understanding his pain and trauma for many years. Id. ¶ 13.

Schomaker’s stepsister, Rebecca Lamae Thurman, was in high school at the time of the

attack and did not realize that her brother had been injured until later. R. Thurman Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6.

After the attack, their relationship “became strained” and she “blamed [herself] for [their]

disconnect.” Id. ¶ 11. She feels “great sorrow knowing that Tim suffered for so many years with

his trauma.” Id. ¶ 14.

23. Michael Harrington Weems and Three Family Members

Michael Harrington Weems served as Captain of the Aeromedical Evacuation Flight

Team in the Air Force on June 25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers complex. Decl. of

36
Michael Harrington Weems (July 14, 2022) (“M. Weems Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-2. At the time

of the attack, he was returning to his room from the gym when he heard a “loud boom and felt

the building shake” then was struck in the head by a piece of plywood, knocking him

unconscious. Id. ¶ 7. When he awoke, his “head was bleeding, and [his] ears were ringing,” but

he ran into the hallway to check on his suitemates. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. He had cuts on the bottoms of his

feet from broken glass that developed into severe blood blisters. Id. ¶ 9. Eventually, he got

treatment for his injuries and was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and tinnitus, for which

he was awarded a Purple Heart. Id. ¶ 12; see also id., Ex. D (Weems’s Purple Heart Certificate).

In the weeks after the bombing, he compiled casualty reports and interacted with civilian

facilities for the deceased, actions that earned him the Air Force Commendation Medal with

Valor Device. Id. ¶ 15; see also id., Ex. F (Weems’s Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor

Device Certificate). Since the attack, he continues to struggle with PTSD and sleep issues for

which he takes medication. Id. ¶ 13; see also id., Ex. E (Weems’s Prescription Medications).

Unfortunately, his “condition quickly deteriorated” and his injuries “forced [him] to medically

retire from the Air Force.” Id. ¶¶ 16–17. Weems is rated by the VA as 80% disabled for a

traumatic brain injury, chronic post-concussion migraines, and PTSD. Id. ¶ 18; see also id., Exs.

G (Weems’s VA Benefits Letter), H (Weems’s VA Rating Decision Letter).

Weems’s mother, Nancy Robertson Weems, learned about the attack while she was on a

camping trip, and she was “devast[ed] and incredibly frighten[ed] to hear [her son] was

wounded.” Decl. of Nancy Robertson Weems (June 28, 2022) (“N. Weems Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6–7,

ECF No. 43-2. When she first saw him after the attack, he was a different person and “[i]t was

difficult for [her] to see [her] son this way and not know how to help.” Id. ¶ 10. She constantly

37
worries about her son and “thinking about [his] health has started to affect [her] health” and

quality of life. Id. ¶ 15.

Weems’s father, John Harold Weems, learned about the attack and “[his] heart sank at

that moment . . . and [he] began to think the worst. Decl. of John Harold Weems (June 28, 2022)

(“J. Weems Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-2. He spoke with his son after the attack and “was very

worried about him” because John Weems “did not like him being over there in such dreadful

conditions.” Id. ¶ 9. His son returned home as “not his usual self”—he was quiet, slept often,

and largely kept to himself. Id. ¶ 10. It has been “devastating for [John Weems] to watch

Michael suffer from his injuries,” and he is “saddened by the negative effect that his injuries

have had on [their] relationship.” Id. ¶ 15.

Weems’s brother, Richard Lawrence Weems, “panicked” when he heard about the attack

and nervously awaited word of his brother’s safety. Decl. of Richard Lawrence Weems (June

28, 2022) (“R. Weems Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 43-2. He did not reunite with his brother until

two years after the attack and “an awkwardness developed between [them].” Id. ¶¶ 8, 10. His

brother’s injuries negatively impacted their relationship and communication between them has

diminished. Id. ¶ 13. He feels like he “lost [his] brother in the [a]ttack.” Id. ¶ 14.

24. Brian Christopher Stoneburner

Brian Christopher Stoneburner was a Senior Airman in the in the Air Force on June 25,

1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers complex. Decl. of Brian Christopher Stoneburner (Apr.

11, 2022) (“B. Stoneburner Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 43-2. When the attack occurred, he was trying

to sleep in his room when he suddenly felt “a gut-wrenching explosion.” Id. ¶ 6. After losing

consciousness for a few minutes, he lifted a metal locker off of his roommate and the two

evacuated the building. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8–10. While exiting, he assisted in rescuing individuals from

an elevator and administered first aid to them, resulting in his award of the Air Force

38
Commendation Medal with Valor. Id. ¶ 10; see also id., Ex. D (Stoneburner’s Air Force

Commendation Medal with Valor Certificate). He eventually sought treatment for a rash, burns

on his hands, and body lacerations for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. Id. ¶ 15; see also

id., Ex. E (Stoneburner’s Purple Heart Certificate). He stayed at the Khobar Towers for almost

seven weeks after the bombing and worked the night shift in the garage for three of these weeks,

which caused him to relive the night of the attack; he received an Armed Forces Expeditionary

Medal for his continued service. Id. ¶ 17; see also id., Ex. F (Stoneburner’s Armed Forces

Expeditionary Medal Certificate). After the attack, he “began having nightmares and

flashbacks” and “grew depressed.” Id. ¶ 19. He was diagnosed with PTSD, and when his

symptoms eventually “became overwhelming,” he separated from the military. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22.

The VA determined that he is 30% disabled due to PTSD, a spinal injury, and tinnitus. Id. ¶ 22;

see also id., Exs. G (Stoneburner’s Medical Board Report), H (Stoneburner’s VA Rating

Decision Letter)

25. Scott Patrick Hill and One Family Member

Scott Patrick Hill was a Senior Airman in the United States Air Force on June 25, 1996

stationed at the Khobar Towers complex. Decl. of Scott Patrick Hill (July 25, 2022) (“S. Hill

Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-2. On the night of the attack, he was awoken by a “huge explosion” and

was in “a state of complete shock and speechlessness.” Id. ¶¶ 8–9. As he was evacuating the

building, his feet were cut by glass shards covering the ground. Id. ¶ 10. In the months after the

attack, while still at the Khobar Towers, Hill assisted in cleaning debris, enhancing existing

security measures, and searching for evidence of the bombing as well as helping severely injured

servicemembers board flights to Germany for medical care, actions that earned him the Air Force

Achievement Medal First Oak Leaf Cluster, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and a

Southwest Asia Service Medal. Id. ¶ 15; see also id., Exs. D (Hill’s Air Force Achievement

39
Medal First Oak Leaf Cluster Certificate), E (Hill’s Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal

Certificate). Upon returning home, Hill became increasingly hypervigilant, suspicious,

distrustful of others, quick-tempered, and depressed; he “tried to self-medicate with alcohol.” Id.

¶ 19. He eventually sought treatment from the VA and was diagnosed as 100% disabled for

injuries resulting from the attack. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22; see also id., Exs. F (Hill’s Treatment Record), G

(Hill’s VA Rated Disabilities ), H (Hill’s VA Benefits Letter).

Hill’s spouse, Kimberlee Jo Hill, was midflight during the attack and learned from her

uncle upon touching down at the airport that her husband was alive but injured from the

bombing. Decl. of Kimberlee Jo Hill (July 13, 2022) (“K. Hill Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 8, ECF No. 43-2.

She was “extremely anxious waiting to hear [her husband’s] voice and to confirm that he really

was okay.” Id. ¶ 9. When her husband returned home, his “anxiety made him irritable and

difficult to be around,” and their relationship suffered. Id. ¶ 12. She experienced “sleep issues”

from worrying about her husband and “the reality of what [their] relationship has become leaves

[her] feeling neglected and depressed.” Id. ¶¶ 14–15.

26. Christopher Brian Lauderback

Christopher Brian Lauderback was serving as an Airman First Class in the Air Force on

June 25, 1996 and stationed at the Khobar Towers complex. Decl. of Christopher Brian

Lauderback (May 2, 2022) (“C. Lauderback Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 43-2. He was watching

television in the common room of his building when “a glass balcony window blew in and shards

of shattered glass lacerated [his] whole body.” Id. ¶ 6. He “was thrown across the room into a

concrete wall, injuring [his] head, shoulder, and back.” Id. Despite his injuries, he assisted in

providing first aid and buddy care to others and, in the days and weeks following the attack, he

cleaned debris and blood around the complex while aiding in the investigation of the truck bomb,

actions that earned him the Air Force Achievement Medal. Id. ¶¶ 10–12; see also id., Ex. E

40
(Lauderback’s Air Force Achievement Medal Certificate). Upon returning home, Lauderback’s

“physical injuries from the [a]ttack continued to plague [him].” Id. ¶ 15. He also became

hypervigilant, angry, distrustful, and prone to night terrors because of the bombing. Id.

Lauderback is rated by the VA as 100% disabled for migraines, chronic bicep tendonitis in his

left shoulder, cubital tunnel syndrome in his left shoulder, PTSD, and tinnitus. Id. ¶¶ 15–16; see

also id., Exs. F (Lauderback’s VA Disability Letter), G (Lauderback’s VA Rated Disabilities ),

H (Lauderback’s Medical Evaluation).

27. One Family Member of Christopher Pius Nagel

Christopher Pius Nagel, a Staff Sergeant in the Air Force quartered at Khobar Towers at

the time of the attack, was a plaintiff in Christie, 2020 WL 3606273, at *6. He was awarded $7

million in damages as a result of his pain and suffering. Id. at *24. Nagel’s former spouse,

Jacqueline Archuleta Quintana, is a plaintiff in this action. Decl. of Jacqueline Archuleta

Quintana (May 27, 2022) (“J. Quintana Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 43-2.

When Jacqueline Archuleta Quintana learned of the attack, she became “extremely

distraught” and waited nervously to hear from her then-husband. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5, 8. When her

husband returned home, he was “noticeably different,” unfriendly, hardened, strongly

opinionated, unreasonable, and quick-tempered, and “it impacted [their] lives in the worst way.”

Id. ¶¶ 11, 15. Their “marriage quickly deteriorated due to Chris’s demeanor,” and they divorced

in 1999. Id. ¶¶ 16–17. The attack “had a monumental impact on [her] family,” and she

“essentially lost [her] best friend.” Id. ¶ 18.

28. Two Family Members of Bryant Keith White

Bryant Keith White, a Senior Airman in the Air Force quartered at Khobar Towers at the

time of the attack, was a plaintiff in Christie, 2020 WL 3606273, at *8. He was awarded $7

million dollars in damages as a result of his pain and suffering. Id. at *25. White’s mother,

41
Susan Lynn White, and father, Jerry White, are plaintiffs in this action. Decl. of Susan Lynn

White (July 14, 2022) (“S. White Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 43-2; Decl. of Jerry White (July 14,

2022) (“J. White Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 43-2.

When Susan Lynn White heard the news of the attack, her “heart sank and [she] started to

shake.” S. White Decl. ¶ 6. She was relieved when her son returned home, but the

psychological changes she witnessed in him, such as his emotional distance and self-isolation,

“made her fe[el] like [she] was losing [her] son,” which caused her to experience depression,

stress, and migraines. Id. ¶¶ 9, 16. The “reality of what the [a]ttack did to [her] son and [her]

family is horrendous.” Id. ¶ 18.

When Jerry White heard about the attack, “[i]t was one of the most terrifying moments of

[his] life.” J. White Decl. ¶ 6. He was “so distressed that [he] needed to take time off work.” Id.

¶ 7. When his son returned home after the attack, Jerry White’s military service in the Vietnam

War allowed him to easily recognize the psychological changes in his son; he was “very reserved

and frightened down to the core.” Id. ¶ 10. “It pains [Jerry White] a great deal that [his son] has

to live the rest of his life with PTSD, anxiety, depression, and all the other injuries he still

experiences because of the Khobar bombing.” Id. ¶ 13. Jerry White has “gone through years of

great sorrow, anguish, and worry about Bryant” and “will carry his [son’s] injuries and his

struggles with [him] each and every day.” Id. ¶ 14.

29. Jason Allen Bratton

Jason Allen Bratton was serving as a Senior Airman in the Air Force on June 25, 1996,

stationed at the Khobar Towers complex. Decl. of Jason Allen Bratton (May 19, 2022) (“J.

Bratton Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 43-2. When the attack happened, he was asleep in his room until

“a huge tremor from an explosion . . . blew [him] out of [his] bed.” Id. ¶ 6. He was thrown to

the floor and “covered in shards of glass” with lacerations all over his body. Id. ¶ 7. He

42
attempted to treat his bleeding finger himself, which “resulted in its permanent deformation.” Id.

¶ 10. Despite his injuries, he carried injured servicemembers to triage for medical assistance

and, in the days and weeks following the attack, he helped search for the deceased, actions that

earned him the Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor Device. Id. ¶¶ 11–12; see also id.,

Ex. E (Bratton’s Air Force Commendation Medal with Valor Device Certificate). Shortly after

the attack, Bratton began experiencing symptoms of PTSD but waited many years to seek

treatment. Id. ¶¶ 19–21. The VA ultimately determined that he is 70% disabled due to PTSD

with major depressive disorder resulting from the attack. Id. ¶ 22; see also id., Exs. G (Bratton’s

Psychological Evaluation), H (Bratton’s VA Rating Decision Letter).

30. Kenneth Michael Kowalczyk and Three Family Members

Kenneth Michael Kowalczyk was serving as a Senior Airman and Aircraft Weapons

Systems Specialist in the Air Force on June 25, 1996, stationed at the Khobar Towers complex.

Decl. of Kenneth Michael Kowalczyk (July 26, 2022) (“K. Kowalczyk Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 43-

2. He was watching television in the common room of his building when he “was ejected off the

couch and into a concrete wall” and knocked unconscious. Id. ¶ 7. When he awoke, he realized

that he “had a deep laceration to [his] left thumb” and “[his] left pinky finger was partially

severed and dangling from [his] hand by only a thin piece of skin.” Id. ¶ 8. He was also

“profusely bleeding from numerous lacerations on [his] legs and upper torso.” Id. In recognition

of his injuries, Kowalczyk was awarded a Purple Heart. Id. ¶ 16; see also id., Ex. F

(Kowalczyk’s Purple Heart Certificate). Despite his injuries, Kowalczyk assisted in search and

rescue efforts, earning him the Airman’s Medal. Id. ¶ 14; see also id., Ex. D (Kowalczyk’s

Airman’s Medal Certificate). After the attack, the changes in his demeanor and zest for life

caused him and his wife to divorce. Id. ¶ 26. He is rated as 70% disabled by the VA for his

43
injuries that he sustained during the attack. Id. ¶ 27; see also id., Exs. G (Kowalczyk’s VA

Benefits Letter), H (Kowalczyk’s VA Rated Disabilities).

Kowalczyk’s mother, Patricia Mary Kowalczyk, experienced “indescribable” stress and

fear upon learning of the attack, Decl. of Patricia Mary Kowalczyk (July 25, 2022) (“P.

Kowalczyk Decl.”) ¶¶ 3. 6, ECF No. 43-2, and she was “left in worrisome agony for days”

waiting to hear about her son’s status, id. ¶ 7. When Kowalczyk finally returned home and

Patricia Kowalczyk learned about what he experienced at the Khobar Towers complex, she saw

him become “distant, quiet, and withdrawn.” Id. ¶ 11. She would “worry and stress every time

he was deployed after that,” which caused her stress and led to “a minor breakdown.” Id. ¶ 16.

To this day, her “heart aches for [her] son and the ongoing injuries from which he still suffers”

due to the attack. Id. ¶ 17.

Kowalczyk’s father, Kenneth Dale Kowalczyk, learned about the attack and was

immediately scared for his son and waiting to hear of his status was “painfully stressful.” Decl.

of Kenneth Dale Kowalczyk (July 25, 2022) (“K. Dale Kowalczyk Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 7, ECF No. 43-

2. When his son finally returned home, he confided in Kenneth Kowalczyk about the details of

the attack, which was “disheartening,” to know that his son had experienced such trauma. Id. ¶

10. Kenneth Kowalczyk also noticed the changes in his son’s demeanor, which made his son

quiet, less social, and avoidant of crowds. Id. ¶ 14. This has been “difficult” for Kenneth

Kowalczyk, to see the changes in his son’s demeanor and the “pain [he] feel[s] for him is never-

ending.” Id. ¶ 16.

Kowalczyk’s brother, Aaron Charles Kowalczyk, heard about the attack and “[n]othing

felt safe anymore and [he] felt a newfound sense of worry, fear, and concern for [his] brother.”

Decl. of Aaron Charles Kowalczyk (July 25, 2022) (“A. Kowalczyk Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 7, ECF No. 43-

44
2. His relationship with his brother “became strained” after the attack, and he started to feel as if

his brother “resented” him. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. The attack “took [his] brother from [him],” and he is

“sad and depressed” that he does not share a close relationship with his brother anymore. Id. ¶

16.

D. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 12, 2021 as a related case to Christie. See Complaint,

ECF No. 1; Notice of Suit, ECF No. 2; Pls.’ Notice of Related Case, ECF No. 3. Plaintiffs’

subsequent request to file plaintiffs’ addresses under seal, see Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to File Pls.’

Addresses Under Seal, ECF No. 4, was granted on July 15, 2021, see Order Granting Pls. Leave

to File, ECF No. 7, and plaintiffs then filed those addresses under seal on July 21, 2021, see

Sealed Notice of Pls.’ Addresses Filed Under Seal, ECF No. 10.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on August 12, 2021, ECF No. 12, and on

December 2, 2021, were directed to provide updates every thirty days on their efforts to serve

defendants. See Min. Order (Dec. 2, 2021). Plaintiffs then sought leave to file their Second

Amended Complaint on December 15, 2021, arguing that additional plaintiffs sought to join this

action since its initiation, see Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to File a Second Amended Compl., ECF No.

21; Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to File a Second Amended Compl., ECF No. 22,

which request was granted on January 3, 2022, see Min. Order (Jan. 3, 2022); Second Amended

Compl. (“Compl.”), ECF No. 23; see also Sealed Second Amended Notice of Pls.’ Addresses

Filed Under Seal, ECF No. 24; Second Amended Notice of Suit, ECF No. 25.

As discussed in Part III.B, Iran was properly served under the FSIA and, after failing to

appear, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Iran on September 1, 2022. See Clerk’s

Entry of Default, ECF No. 38. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for judicial notice of prior related

45
cases and for default judgment as to liability and damages on November 17, 2022. See Pls.’

Mot. 6 The motion is now ripe for resolution.

Additionally, on January 31, 2023, plaintiffs moved for leave to file their unredacted

declarations and exhibits under seal, with a public version redacting plaintiffs’ personally

identifying information redacted available. See Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to File Documentary

Evidence Under Seal, ECF No. 42. Plaintiffs argued that sealing was necessary to protect

plaintiffs’ identities from reprisal from Iran and to keep confidential plaintiffs’ health and

medical information detailed in their exhibits. Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Leave to File

Documentary Evidence Under Seal at 3–4, ECF No. 42-1. Plaintiffs’ motion was granted that

day, see Min. Order (Jan. 31, 2023), and plaintiffs accordingly filed their exhibits under seal, see

Pls.’ Declarations Filed Under Seal, ECF No. 43, and in redacted form, see Pls.’ Redacted

Declarations, ECF No. 44.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to consider entering a default

judgment when a party applies for that relief. See FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2). Nevertheless,

“strong policies favor resolution of disputes on their merits” and, therefore, “‘[t]he default

judgment must normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted

because of an essentially unresponsive party.’” Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir.

1980) (quoting H.F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689, 691

6
Two minor procedural steps occurred before plaintiffs moved for default judgment. First, on October 17,
2022, this Court directed plaintiffs, by November 17, 2022, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute after plaintiffs failed to take action following the Clerk’s entry of default six weeks prior. See
Min. Order (Oct. 17, 2022). Plaintiffs then filed their motion for default judgment according to that deadline. See
Pls.’ Mot. Second, on November 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Plaintiffs Jimmy
Olen Weaver and Jerimiah Joe Morrissette, ECF No. 39, stating that those two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims in this case without prejudice. The Court duly dismissed those plaintiffs without prejudice according to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See Min. Order (Nov. 17, 2022).

46
(D.C. Cir. 1970)). Furthermore, “entry of a default judgment is not automatic,” Mwani v. bin

Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted), and thus the procedural posture of a

default does not relieve a federal court of its typical obligations, including its “affirmative

obligation” to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, James

Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Additionally, “a court

should satisfy itself that it has personal jurisdiction before entering judgment against an absent

defendant.” Mwani, 417 F.3d at 6.

When default judgment is sought under the FSIA, a claimant must also “establish[] his

claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). This

requirement “provides foreign sovereigns a special protection akin to that assured the federal

government by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55([d]).” Jerez v. Republic of Cuba, 775 F.3d 419, 423 (D.C. Cir.

2014); see also H.R. REP. No. 94-1487, at 26 (1976) (stating that § 1608(e) establishes “the same

requirement applicable to default judgments against the U.S. Government under [R]ule 55([d])”).

While the “FSIA leaves it to the court to determine precisely how much and what kinds of

evidence the plaintiff must provide,” courts must be mindful that Congress enacted § 1605A,

FSIA’s terrorism exception, and § 1608(e) with the “aim[] to prevent state sponsors of

terrorism—entities particularly unlikely to submit to this country’s laws—from escaping liability

for their sins.” Han Kim v. People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044, 1047–48

(D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e)); see also Maalouf v. Islamic Republic of Iran,

923 F.3d 1095, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2019). With this objective in mind, the D.C. Circuit has

instructed that “courts have the authority—indeed, we think, the obligation—to ‘adjust

evidentiary requirements to . . . differing situations.’” Han Kim, 774 F.3d at 1048 (quoting

Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1981)) (formatting modified).

47
 Generally, courts in FSIA default actions must draw their “findings of fact and

conclusions of law from admissible testimony in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Evidence.” Id. at 1049 (quoting Daliberti v. Republic of Iraq, 146 F. Supp. 2d 19, 21 n.1

(D.D.C. 2001)). Courts take uncontroverted factual allegations that are supported by admissible

evidence as true. Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 78 F. Supp. 3d 379, 386 (D.D.C. 2015)

(“Courts may rely on uncontroverted factual allegations that are supported by affidavits.” (citing

Rimkus, 750 F. Supp. 2d at 171)); accord Worley v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 75 F. Supp. 3d 311,

319 (D.D.C. 2014); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2) (authorizing court to “consider the fact undisputed

for purposes of the motion” when adverse party “fails to properly address another party’s

assertion of fact”).

The D.C. Circuit’s “review of findings underlying a default judgment in a FSIA case of

this sort is ‘lenient.’” Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 892 F.3d 348, 356 (D.C. Cir. 2018)

(quoting Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 785 (D.C. Cir. 2017)), as “the courts are

granted broad discretion to determine what degree and kind of evidence is satisfactory.”

Maalouf, 923 F.3d at 1114 (citing Han Kim, 774 F.3d at 1047; Owens, 864 F.3d at 785). In

particular, “[i]n a FSIA default proceeding, a factual finding is not deemed clearly erroneous if

there is an adequate basis in the record for inferring that the district court . . . was satisfied with

the evidence submitted.” Owens, 864 F.3d at 785 (second alteration in original) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A default judgment may be entered when (1) the court has subject-matter jurisdiction

over the claims, (2) personal jurisdiction is properly exercised over the defendants, (3) the

plaintiffs have presented satisfactory evidence to establish their claims against the defendants,

48
and (4) the plaintiffs have satisfactorily proven that they are entitled to the monetary damages

they seek. These requirements are satisfied here and addressed in order below.

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction under the FSIA

“The district courts . . . have original jurisdiction” over “any nonjury civil action against a

foreign state” seeking “relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to

immunity either under sections 1605–1607 of this title.” 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a). Plaintiffs seek in

personam relief, raising the key question whether defendants are entitled to immunity under the

“state sponsor of terrorism” exception set forth in §1605A. 7

“[T]he FSIA establishes a general rule granting foreign sovereigns immunity from the

jurisdiction of United States courts,” Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9, 13

(D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1604), but “that grant of immunity is subject to a number of

exceptions,” id. at 13–14. Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction based on the FSIA’s terrorism exception.

28 U.S.C. § 1605A; see Compl. ¶ 1. In relevant part, this exception abrogates a foreign state’s

immunity in cases where a plaintiff seeks “money damages” for “personal injury or death that

was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the

provision of material support or resources for such an act” if “engaged in by an official,

employee, or agent of such foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1). The FSIA defines a

“foreign state” to include “a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or

instrumentality” thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a). The exception also requires that “the foreign

country was designated a ‘state sponsor of terrorism at the time [of] the act,’” Mohammadi, 782

7
This suit falls beyond the ten-year statute of limitations for actions brought under the FSIA’s terrorism
exception, see 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(b), but the “limitation period in § 1605A(b) is not jurisdictional,” and defendant
has “forfeited its affirmative defense . . . by failing to raise it in” this Court, Owens, 864 F.3d at 805; see also
Maalouf, 923 F.3d at 1115 (holding that a district court may not sua sponte raise a forfeited statute of limitations
defense under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(b)).

49
F.3d at 14 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)), and that, at that time, “the ‘claimant or the

victim was’ a ‘national of the United States,’” id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I)), or

was “a member of the armed forces,” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). 8

Plaintiffs satisfy each of the applicable elements here. As stated above, Iran was

designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984, twelve years before the 1996 Khobar Towers

bombing. All but one of the plaintiffs have averred in sworn declarations that they were U.S.

citizens at the time of the attack. 9 The remaining plaintiff, Un Suk Brodt, did not become a U.S.

citizen until 1999, after the attack; however, she may recover under the FSIA where “the

claimant or the victim” was “a national of the United States” at the time of the attack, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added); see also La Reunion Aerienne v. Socialist People's

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 533 F.3d 837, 844 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (interpreting the former version of

the terrorism exception to mean that “if either the claimant or the victim is a national of the

United States, then immunity is waived”), and Un Suk Brodt’s husband, servicemember plaintiff

Steven Lee Brodt, was a U.S. citizen at the time of the attack, see U. Brodt Decl. ¶ 2, and

8
Finally, the provision requires proof that, “in a case in which the act occurred in the foreign state against
which the claim has been brought, the claimant has afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate
the claim,” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(iii), but the attack took place in Saudi Arabia, not Iran, so this requirement
does not apply.
9
Gration Decl. ¶ 3; J. Gration Decl. ¶ 2; Jonathan Gration Decl. ¶ 2; B. Brown Decl. ¶ 3; E. Graham Decl. ¶
2; C. Brown Decl. ¶ 2; A. Brown Decl. ¶ 3; A. Wingate Decl. ¶ 2; S. Byers Decl. ¶ 3; D. Byers Decl. ¶ 2; R. Byers
Decl. ¶ 2; J. Byers Decl. ¶ 2; T. Fermanis Decl. ¶ 3; K. Mall Decl. ¶ 3; J. Orlando Decl. ¶ 3; U. Orlando Decl. ¶ 2; K.
Weaver Decl. ¶ 3; S. Pomoransky Decl. ¶ 2; V. Anthony Decl. ¶ 2; C. Weaver Decl. ¶ 2; D. Heikes Decl. ¶ 2; R.
Heikes Decl. ¶ 2; R. Gering Decl. ¶3; A. Staricka Decl. ¶ 3; B. Mullings Decl. ¶ 3; T. Mullings Decl. ¶ 2; G.
Mullings Decl. ¶ 2; V. Mullings Decl. ¶ 2; H. Hector Decl. ¶ 2; S. Yost Decl. ¶ 3; M. Yost Decl. ¶ 2; S. Elizabeth
Douglass Decl. ¶ 2; S. Grace Douglass Decl. ¶ 2; S. Millard Douglass Decl. ¶ 2; J. Morrissette Decl. ¶ 3; D.
Morrissette Decl. ¶ 2; N. Morrissette Decl. ¶ 2; N. Wheat Decl. ¶ 3; D. Wheat Decl. ¶ 2; V. Oliver Decl. ¶ 3; T.
Oliver Decl. ¶ 2; S. Brodt Decl. ¶ 3; S. Han Brodt Decl. ¶ 2; S. John Brodt Decl. ¶ 2; S. Goff Decl. ¶ 2; A. Hovel
Decl. ¶ 2; K. Ableidinger Decl. ¶ 2; J. Silvi Decl. ¶ 3; J. Ann Silvi Decl. ¶ 2; A. Silvi Decl. ¶ 2; A. Elizabeth Silvi
Decl. ¶ 2; D. Toole Decl. ¶ 3; M. Canchola Decl. ¶ 2; T. Canchola Decl. ¶ 2; F. Ferguson Decl. ¶ 3; C. Schomaker
Decl. ¶ 2; P. Nott Decl. ¶ 2; P. Wade Nott Decl. ¶ 2; K. Schomaker Decl. ¶ 2; T. Nott Decl. ¶ 2; R. Thurman Decl. ¶
2; M. Weems Decl. ¶ 3; N. Weems Decl. ¶ 2; J. Weems Decl. ¶ 2; R. Weems Decl. ¶ 2; B. Stoneburner Decl. ¶ 3; S.
Hill Decl. ¶ 3; K. Hill Decl. ¶ 2; C. Lauderback Decl. ¶ 3; J. Quintana Decl. ¶ 2; S. White Decl. ¶ 2; J. White Decl. ¶
2; J. Bratton Decl. ¶ 3; K. Kowalczyk Decl. ¶ 3; P. Kowalczyk Decl. ¶ 2; K. Dale Kowalczyk Decl. ¶ 2; A.
Kowalczyk Decl. ¶ 2.

50
therefore provides a basis for jurisdiction over Un Suk Brodt’s claim, see Aceto, 2020 WL

619925, at *13 n.9.

Finally, plaintiffs seek damages “for personal injury . . . that was caused by an . . .

extrajudicial killing” for which defendants provided “material support or resources.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1605A(a)(1); see also Owens, 864 F.3d at 778 (“[T]he plain meaning of § 1605A(a) grants . . .

jurisdiction over claims against designated state sponsors of terrorism that materially support

extrajudicial killings committed by nonstate actors”).

More specifically, the truck bombing that plaintiffs allege caused their injuries was an

“extrajudicial killing” resulting in the deaths of nineteen American military personnel. See, e.g.,

Rimkus, 750 F. Supp. 2d at 182 (“The actions of defendant[] constituted both an extrajudicial

killing and the provision of material support in satisfaction of the first element of liability.”);

Akins I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 33 (same); Aceto, 2020 WL 619925 at *13 (same). The term

“extrajudicial killing” in the FSIA’s terrorism exception has the “meaning given” in “the Torture

Victim Protection Act of 1991,” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(h)(7), which defines the term as “a

deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted

court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized

peoples,” Pub. L. No. 102-256, § 3(a), 106 Stat. 73, 73 (1992) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note

§ 3(a)).

Furthermore, this Court takes judicial notice of the evidence presented in Blais and

Heiser I, demonstrating that defendants provided “material support or resources” for this

extrajudicial killing. As is clear from the evidence in those cases, described supra in Part I.A–B,

defendants authorized, “organized and sponsored” the Khobar Towers attack. Heiser I, 466 F.

Supp. 2d at 262. The evidence shows that defendants helped to recruit, train, fund, supply, and

51
direct Saudi Hezbollah. This establishes that defendants’ actions were “a ‘substantial factor’ in

the sequence of events that led to the plaintiff[s’] injur[ies]” and that the injuries were

“‘reasonably foreseeable or anticipated as a natural consequence’ of the defendant’s conduct.”

Owens, 864 F.3d at 794 (quoting Rothstein v. UBS, 708 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 2013)) (explaining

that the jurisdictional standard for causation under the FSIA’s terrorism exception is proximate

cause).

Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, defendants are not immune from this suit, and

subject-matter jurisdiction may be properly exercised. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a).

B. Personal Jurisdiction under the FSIA

“Personal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over

which the district courts have jurisdiction . . . where service has been made under section 1608 of

[the FSIA].” 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b). Here, service was ultimately made under § 1608(a)(4).

Section 1608 first prescribes two methods by which service shall ordinarily be made, see 28

U.S.C. § 1608(a)(1)–(2), but these methods were “not available” to plaintiffs in this action,

Holladay v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 406 F. Supp. 3d 55, 61 (D.D.C. 2019); see also Frost v.

Islamic Republic of Iran, 383 F. Supp. 3d 33, 49 (D.D.C. 2019), as “defendant[] ha[s] neither

made a special arrangement for service with the plaintiffs nor entered into any international

convention governing service,” Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 228 F. Supp. 3d 64, 78

(D.D.C. 2017).

Plaintiffs attempted service under § 1608(a)(3) by sending two copies of the summons,

second amended complaint, second amended notice of suit, the FSIA, plaintiffs’ motion seeking

to file addresses under seal and the corresponding order granting that request, and the notice of

related case along with a translation of each into Iran’s official language by certified or

52
registered mail to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Aff. Requesting Foreign Mailing, ECF

No. 17. 10 Plaintiffs then transmitted the same documents under the cover of diplomatic notes,

and Iran was thus served on July 15, 2022. See Return of Service/Aff. of Summons and

Complaint Executed, ECF No. 36. 11 This Court has personal jurisdiction over Iran.

C. Defendants’ Liability

Plaintiffs seek relief under FSIA § 1605A(c), which creates a “private right of action . . .

for wrongful death, personal injury, and related torts,” Compl. ¶ 2, and provides that, “[i]n any

such action, damages may include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive

damages,” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c); see also Compl. ¶¶ 147–157 (Count I). Yet Section 1605A(c)

does not set out guidance on the substantive bases for liability that determine plaintiffs’

entitlement to damages. Consequently, courts “may rely on well-established statements of

common law, found in state reporters, the Restatement of Torts, and other respected treatises, in

determining damages under § 1605A(c).” Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 353; see Heiser II, 659 F. Supp.

2d at 24 (applying “general principles of tort law,” such as the Restatement (Second) of Torts, to

determine liability); see also Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 399 (citing Oveissi II, 879 F. Supp. 2d at

54); Worley, 75 F. Supp. 3d at 335. As such, defendants’ liability is discussed in detail below,

starting with the servicemember plaintiffs.

10
To clarify, on July 19, 2021, plaintiffs sought an order permitting service of process by diplomatic
channels, under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4), see ECF No. 9, but that request was denied as premature because plaintiffs
had not yet attempted to serve defendants through foreign mailing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3), so plaintiffs
were directed to so comply before attempting service through diplomatic channels—the order of which steps the
FSIA requires, see Min. Order (July 21, 2021).
11
Specifically, on July 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of State certified in an Affidavit of Service that it met
the requirements for diplomatic service under § 1608(a)(4) by causing delivery of a Summons, Complaint, and
Notice of Suit to Iran on July 15, 2022. See Aff. of Service at 1.

53
 1. Servicemember Plaintiffs

Servicemember plaintiffs bring their claims under theories of assault, battery, and

intentional infliction of emotional distress. 12 As discussed in the damages section, these

plaintiffs may recover under only one theory, see, e.g., EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S.

279, 297 (2002) (“[I]t ‘goes without saying that the courts can and should preclude double

recovery by an individual.’”) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 333

(1980)), but each theory of liability is nevertheless evaluated.

a. Assault and Battery

Battery requires an act “intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact . . . or an

imminent apprehension of such a contact,” and that such a contact in fact “directly or indirectly

results.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 13. “Harmful contact” causes a “physical

impairment of the condition of another’s body, or physical pain or illness.” Id. § 15; see also

Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 76 (D.D.C. 2010) (defining these terms).

Iran acted with the intent to cause harmful contact with the residents of the Khobar Towers when

it materially supported the truck bombing. See, e.g., Gill v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 249 F.

Supp. 3d 88, 102 (D.D.C. 2017) (defining material support for terrorist attacks as acts intending

to cause harm). Twenty-four servicemember plaintiffs were in the Khobar Towers complex at

the time of the attack and suffered harmful physical contact resulting from the explosive force of

the blast and therefore defendants are liable to them for battery. 13

12
Plaintiff the Estate of Lt. Co. Steven Peter Goff noted its withdrawal of claims for wrongful death and
survival, see Pls.’ Mem. at 18–19; Compl. ¶¶ 185–189 (Count VI, wrongful death), 190–194 (Count VII survival
claim), so those theories of liability are not addressed in this opinion.
13
J. Gration Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (cuts to body from glass shards); B. Brown Decl. ¶ 12 (right shoulder injury); A.
Brown Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (pressure on body from explosion, ringing ears, inhaled smoke, dust, and toxic fumes); S. Byers
Decl. ¶¶ 7–11 (slammed against wall, hit head and neck, ringing ears, glass shards in body); T. Fermanis Decl. ¶¶ 6–
11 (thrown against wall and knocked unconscious, glass shards in body); K. Mall Decl. ¶¶ 6–8 (air conditioning unit
fell on his head and knocked unconscious, glass shards in feet); J. Orlando Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (knocked to ground, ringing
ears, glass shards in leg); K. Weaver Decl. ¶¶ 9–10 (thrown to ground hitting back and head, glass shards in body,

54
 Assault occurs where a defendant “acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact

with the person of the other . . . or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and . . . the other

is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 21(1).

“[A]cts of terrorism are, by their very nature, intended to harm and to terrify by instilling fear of

further harm,” so where plaintiffs averred “that they did, in fact, fear such harm because of the

attack,” defendant may be held liable for assault. 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). Imminence is

defined as being “so close to striking distance that [one] can reach the other almost at once.”

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 29 cmt. 2. Twenty-five servicemember plaintiffs located at

or in the immediate vicinity of the Khobar Towers at the time of the attack present valid claims

for assault because they were within “striking distance” of the blast and therefore had an

imminent apprehension of harm. Id. 14

debris and dust in mouth); R. Gering Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 12 (knocked to knees, hurt back and ankle, ringing ears); S. Yost
Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10 (blown out of chair, glass shards in body, bleeding head and arm, ringing ears, and cuts, scrapes, and
bruises); J. Morrissette Decl. ¶¶ 7–9 (dust in eyes, pressure through body, glass shards in feet); N. Wheat Decl. ¶¶ 7–
8 (blast launched him into the air and down on the floor hurting his back, glass shards in body, including left arm
and head); S. Brodt Decl. ¶ 7 (laceration to right foot); S. Goff Decl. ¶ 11 (glass shard through chest, hands, feet,
legs, and shoulders); J. Silvi Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (thrown from couch, head injury, laceration to right foot and forehead); D.
Toole Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (thrown across room, head injury, ringing ears, lacerations to head and back); F. Ferguson Decl.
¶¶ 6–7 (lacerations from glass shards, ringing ears); M. Weems Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (struck in head by debris, knocked
unconscious, laceration to head, ringing ears); B. Stoneburner Decl. ¶¶ 6, 15 (toxic grime on hands leaving scars,
body lacerations, headache, ringing ears); S. Hill Decl. ¶¶ 7–10 (dust in mouth and eyes, glass shards in feet, ringing
ears); C. Lauderback Decl. ¶¶ 6–8 (thrown across room injuring head, shoulder and back, ringing ears, dust in mouth
and eyes, glass shards in feet, lacerations on body); J. Bratton Decl. ¶¶ 6–7 (thrown from bed onto floor, body
lacerations, severed tendon in finger); K. Kowalczyk Decl. ¶¶ 7–9, 15 (thrown into wall and knocked unconscious,
glass shards in body, severed finger); V. Oliver Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (glass shards embedded in legs and feet).
14
Twenty-three servicemember plaintiffs were inside one of the targeted buildings in the Khobar Towers.
See J. Gration Decl. ¶ 7; A. Brown Decl. ¶ 7; S. Byers Decl. ¶ 7; T. Fermanis Decl. ¶ 6; K. Mall Decl. ¶ 6; J.
Orlando Decl. ¶ 7; K. Weaver Decl. ¶ 10; R. Gering Decl. ¶ 6; S. Yost Decl. ¶ 7; J. Morrissette Decl. ¶ 7; N. Wheat
Decl. ¶ 7; S. Brodt Decl. ¶ 7; S. Goff Decl. ¶ 11; J. Silvi Decl. ¶ 7; D. Toole Decl. ¶ 7; F. Ferguson Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; M.
Weems Decl. ¶ 7; B. Stoneburner Decl. ¶ 6; S. Hill Decl. ¶ 8; C. Lauderback Decl. ¶ 6; J. Bratton Decl. ¶ 6; K.
Kowalczyk Decl. ¶ 7; V. Oliver Decl. ¶ 7. Two additional servicemember plaintiffs were located in close proximity
to the blast site. See B. Brown Decl. ¶ 7 (located in the complex’s underground gym facility approximately 0.25
mile from the site); B. Mullings Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (stationed at a security post at the Khobar Towers complex, saw the
truck enter the parking lot near the blast site, and felt the pressure from the blast from his station).

55
 b. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

“[O]ne who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly cause[d]

severe emotional distress to” a plaintiff is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46(1); see also Heiser II, 659 F. Supp. 2d at 26. “Acts of

terrorism are by their very definition extreme and outrageous and intended to cause the highest

degree of emotional distress.” Belkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 667 F. Supp. 2d 8, 22 (D.D.C.

2009); see also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 77 (same). All twenty-six servicemember plaintiffs

have demonstrated through their sworn statements that they suffered severe emotional and

psychological stress as a result of the attack. 15 Additionally, twenty-one servicemember

plaintiffs have demonstrated, through their sworn declarations and corroborating submissions,

that they have formal PTSD diagnoses as a result of the attack. 16 Defendants are liable to all

twenty-six servicemember plaintiffs for IIED.

2. Servicemember Victims’ Family Members

The remaining fifty-three plaintiffs—Judith Ellen Gration, Jonathan Scott Gration, Jr.,

Eva Ranee Graham, Corey Thomas Brown, Alexis Nichole Wingate, Donna Lee Byers, Rodney

Lee Byers, Joseph Eugene Byers, Ursula Leona Orlando, Susan Pauline Pomoransky, Vickie

Rena Anthony, Clinton Edward Weaver, Donald Lee Heikes, Roger Dayle Heikes, Tina Marie

Mullings, Gloria Ann Mullings, Vernon Oscar Mullings, Heather Mauren Hector, Maria Star

15
See Gration Decl. ¶ 24; B. Brown Decl. ¶ 21; A. Brown Decl. ¶ 23; S. Byers Decl. ¶ 18; T. Fermanis Decl.
¶ 21; K. Mall Decl. ¶ 22; J. Orlando Decl. ¶ 21; K. Weaver Decl. ¶ 27; R. Gering Decl. ¶¶ 17–19; A. Staricka Decl.
¶¶ 19–20; B. Mullings Decl. ¶¶ 19–22; S. Yost Decl. ¶¶ 19–21; J. Morrissette Decl. ¶ 25; N. Wheat Decl. ¶ 22; S.
Brodt Decl. ¶ 15; S. Goff Decl. ¶ 23; J. Silvi Decl. ¶¶ 18–19; D. Toole Decl. ¶ 28; F. Ferguson Decl. ¶ 18; M.
Weems Decl. ¶¶ 18, 20; B. Stoneburner Decl. ¶ 19; S. Hill Decl. ¶ 20; C. Lauderback Decl. ¶ 17; J. Bratton Decl. ¶
19; K. Kowalczyk Decl. ¶ 25; V. Oliver Decl. ¶¶ 17–18.
16
See B. Brown Decl. ¶ 22; A. Brown Decl. ¶ 20; S. Byers Decl. ¶ 19; T. Fermanis Decl. ¶ 21; K. Mall Decl.
¶¶ 15, 24; R. Gering Decl. ¶ 17; A. Staricka Decl. ¶¶ 19–20; B. Mullings Decl. ¶ 24; S. Yost Decl. ¶¶ 22–23; J.
Morrissette Decl. ¶ 24; S. Brodt Decl. ¶¶ 15–17; J. Silvi Decl. ¶¶ 19, 21; D. Toole Decl. ¶ 29; F. Ferguson Decl. ¶
21; M. Weems Decl. ¶ 18; B. Stoneburner Decl. ¶¶ 19, 22; S. Hill Decl. ¶¶ 19, 22; C. Lauderback Decl. ¶ 16; J.
Bratton Decl. ¶¶ 21–22; K. Kowalczyk Decl. ¶ 27; V. Oliver Decl. ¶ 18.

56
Yost, Serena Elizabeth Douglass, Sarah Grace Douglass, Steven Millard Douglass, Diane

Theresa Morrissette, Natasha Kami Morrissette, Donald Allen Wheat, Tamara Lee Oliver, Un

Suk Brodt, Steven Han Brodt, Samuel John Brodt, Shirley Ann Goff, Antoinette Marie Hovel,

Kathryn Mary Ableidinger, Jo Ann Silvi, Angela Christine Silvi, Alison Elizabeth Silvi, Michele

Ann Canchola, Timothy Louis Canchola, Christina Marie Schomaker, Paula Gail Nott, Preston

Wade Nott, Kristine Lynnette Schomaker, Tanya Lee Nott, Rebecca Lamae Thurman, Nancy

Robertson Weems, John Harold Weems, Richard Lawrence Weems, Kimberlee Jo Hill,

Jacqueline Archuleta Quintana, Susan Lynn White, Jerry White, Patricia Mary Kowalczyk,

Kenneth Dale Kowalczyk, and Aaron Charles Kowalczyk—seek to collect damages as family

members of servicemember plaintiffs present in Saudi Arabia for the Khobar Towers bombing.

The family members’ theory of liability is IIED. Compl. ¶¶ 172–179 (Count IV). The

Restatement permits recovery for those who were not a direct target of a defendants’ conduct if

(1) “the defendants’ conduct is sufficiently outrageous and intended to inflict severe emotional

harm upon a person [who] is not present” and (2) the claimant is a member of a victim’s

immediate family, Heiser II, 659 F. Supp. 2d at 26–27 (quoting DAN B. DOBBS, THE LAW OF

TORTS § 307, at 834 (2000)), or the functional equivalent of an immediate family member, see

Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325, 337 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (extending liability under

the FSIA for IIED to “members of the victim’s household” who were also “viewed as the

functional equivalents of immediate family members”); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF

TORTS § 46, cmt. l (leaving “open the possibility of situations in which presence . . . may not be

required”).

Thirty-eight of the plaintiffs are immediate family members—parents, spouses, children,

and siblings—of victims. See Fritz, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 63 (observing that the “strict meaning” of

57
immediate family is “one’s spouse, parents, siblings, and children” (quoting Heiser II, 659 F.

Supp. 2d at 28)). Fifteen of the plaintiffs—Susan Pauline Pomoransky, Donald Lee Heikes,

Roger Dayle Heikes, Eva Ranee Graham, Jacqueline Archuleta Quintana, Maria Star Yost,

Christina Marie Schomaker, Serena Elizabeth Douglass, Sarah Grace Douglass, Tanya Lea Nott,

Rebecca Lame Thurman, Steven Millard Douglass, Timothy Louis Canchola, Preston Wade

Nott, and Michele Ann Canchola—do not fall neatly into these traditional categories but are the

functional equivalents of immediate family members and are therefore able to maintain claims

for IIED. See Bettis, 315 F.3d at 337.

Half-siblings like Susan Pauline Pomoransky, Donald Lee Heikes, and Roger Dayle

Heikes “are presumed to recover” as full siblings would, Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran,

515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 52 (D.D.C. 2007)), and the evidence here supports application of that

presumption: each attests to close bonds with their half siblings. 17

Two of the plaintiffs—Eva Ranee Graham and Jacqueline Archuleta Quintana—are

former spouses married to servicemember plaintiffs at the time of the attack. E. Graham Decl. ¶¶

5, 7; J. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5. A former spouse is considered a member of the victim’s

immediate family for the purposes of recovery in a claim for IIED. See Panahi v. Islamic

Republic of Iran, No. 19-0006 (ABJ), 2020 WL 6591425, at *9 (D.D.C. Oct. 10, 2020) (Jackson,

A.B., J.) (finding that the former spouse of a tortured Iranian detainee was an immediate family

member under the Restatement). Relatedly, two of the plaintiffs—Maria Star Yost and Christina

Marie Schomaker—were either dating or engaged to servicemember plaintiffs and thus not

17
Pomoransky “took care of [her half-brother] daily from the day he was born until [she] got married three
years later.” S. Pomoransky Decl. ¶ 13. Donald Lee Heikes was “very close” with his half-brother and they “lived
in the same household and shared a bedroom for six years.” D. Heikes Decl. ¶ 10. Roger Dayle Heikes was also
“very close” with his half-brother; they “played sports together[,]. . . often went fishing[,] and talked about
everything.” R. Heikes Decl. ¶ 13.

58
legally related to them at the time of the attack, but were the functional equivalent of spouses

given that their “bond” with the relevant servicemember plaintiff “was the functional equivalent

of marriage” at the time of the bombing. Bettis, 315 F.3d at 337; see also Surette v. Islamic

Republic of Iran, 231 F. Supp. 2d 260, 270 (D.D.C. 2002) (holding woman who was not legally

married to the victim, but had lived with the victim for over 20 years in “a bond that was the

functional equivalent of a legal marriage” and was recognized by family and colleagues, could

recover for IIED); cf. Aceto, 2020 WL 619925, at *16 (rejecting functional equivalent of spouse

finding for couple that had met in “1994 or 1995” and had dated for less than two years before

Khobar Towers bombing). 18

Four of the plaintiffs—Serena Elizabeth Douglass, Sarah Grace Douglass, Tanya Lea

Nott, and Rebecca Lamae Thurman—are step-siblings of servicemember plaintiffs. Step-

siblings may recover where they are “viewed as the functional equivalents of family members”

based on a case-by-case analysis. Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 79

(D.D.C. 2010) (Lamberth, C.J.) (quotation marks omitted) (finding that a stepbrother “who

remembers fishing and swimming with and was treated like a brother by [service-member], is the

functional equivalent of a brother”); see also Pennington v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 19-cv-

796 (JEB), 2022 WL 168261, at *1–2 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2022). These step-sibling plaintiffs attest

to the fact that they were the functional equivalent of an immediate family member at the time of

the bombing. 19

18
See M. Yost Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6 (engaged to Sy Yost at the time of the attack after dating for two years and living
together; they married upon his return approximately eight months after the Khobar Towers bombing); C.
Schomaker Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, 13 (dating Timothy Schomaker at the time of the attack after dating and living together on
another military base; they married upon his return almost one year after the bombing).
19
Serena Elizabeth Douglass attests to having a “close relationship” with her stepbrother Clayton Omar Zook
in which they would “play[] video games . . . [,] sit[] together listening to music,” and discuss “deep topics, like
religion, open-mindedness, and life choices.” S. Elizabeth Douglass Decl. ¶¶ 9–10. Sarah Grace Douglass also
attests to a “natural familial bond” with her stepbrother Clayton Zook in which he was a “consistent source of fun,

59
 Additionally, four family member plaintiffs—Steven Millard Douglass, Timothy Louis

Canchola, Preston Wade Nott, and Michele Ann Canchola—are stepparents of servicemember

plaintiffs. Stepparents may recover as natural parents where they adopt their stepchild or are

otherwise the “functional equivalents of family members.” Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at

79 (finding that where a stepson “grew up” with his stepfather “as though they constituted a

natural family,” the stepfather was the functional equivalent of a father, id. at 80). Steven

Millard Douglass, the stepfather of servicemember plaintiff Clayton Omar Zook, lived with his

stepson and they “quickly bonded,” with the former appreciating now having a son to work on

cars and do remodeling projects together. S. Millard Douglass Decl. ¶ 6. Timothy Louis

Canchola, David Anthony Toole’s stepfather, also attests to having a “close and loving

relationship” with his stepson, whom he “thought of . . . as [his] own biological son.” T.

Canchola Decl. ¶¶ 10–11. Michele Ann Canchola raised servicemember plaintiff David

Anthony Toole “as if he were [her] biological son.” M. Canchola Decl. ¶ 9. She

“wholeheartedly took on the role of his mother,” and they “did all the things that mothers and

sons do together.” Id. ¶¶ 10–11. Preston Wade Knott similarly attests to a close relationship

with his stepson Timothy Michael Schomaker in which they “engaged in father-son activities

such as camping, off-roading, and attending baseball games.” P. Wade Nott Decl. ¶¶ 3, 11.

These plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to recover for IIED as the functional equivalent of a

family member at the time of the attack.

stability, and love in [her] life” such that “it felt like he had been [her] brother forever.” S. Grace Douglass Decl. ¶
9. Tanya Lee Nott recalls that she and her stepbrother Timothy Michael Schomaker “played together as siblings do”
growing up; she “always wanted to hang out” with him, they never argued, and she saw him as her “cool older
brother.” T. Nott Decl. ¶ 8. Rebecca Lamae Thurman also recalls her “good relationship” with Timothy Schomaker
in which they “bonded” during shared activities, and Timothy Schomaker was “very protective” of her and “always
had [her] back.” R. Thurman Decl. ¶¶ 7–8.

60
 As just outlined, the servicemember plaintiffs and the immediate-family member

plaintiffs have established the defendants’ liability under the federal private right of action

against state sponsors of terrorism, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c), for the torts of assault, battery, and

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

D. Damages

Turning to the allowable damages, servicemember plaintiffs seek damages for pain and

suffering, under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) and the family member plaintiffs seek solatium damages,

under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ A. Plaintiffs also request pre- and

post-judgment interest and punitive damages. Id. ¶¶ B–C. Thus, the damage award to which

each plaintiff is entitled is described below.

1. Legal Standard for Damages Under Section 1605A(c)

In actions brought under the FSIA’s terrorism exception, foreign states may be liable for

money damages, including “economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering and punitive

damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). To recover, plaintiffs “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.” Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 402 (internal

quotation marks omitted); see also Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 353 (stating the same). Courts may

look to expert testimony and prior awards in determining whether the amount of damages has

been proven by a reasonable estimate. 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). The D.C. Circuit “review[s] the District Court’s FSIA damages awards for abuse of

discretion.” Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 356.

The evidence presented in Blais and Heiser I, of which this Court has taken judicial

notice and reviewed above, has satisfactorily shown that plaintiffs’ injuries were reasonably

61
certain and were the intended consequences of defendants’ material support of Saudi Hezbollah.

See Schooley, 2019 WL 2717888, at *74 (concluding the same); Akins, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 39

(same). Having concluded this, whether plaintiffs have shown the amount of pain and suffering,

solatium, and punitive damages by a reasonable estimate will be considered next. 20

2. Pain and Suffering

As discussed, defendants are liable to servicemember plaintiffs for battery and intentional

infliction of emotional distress, but the bar on multiple recoveries allows these plaintiffs to

recover only under one theory, for the single underlying harm. See, e.g., Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d

at 77 (“The Court notes that these plaintiffs who have claimed assault, battery, and IIED may

recover under only one of any such theories, as multiple recovery is prohibited.”). Within this

single-recovery framework, the “baseline assumption,” Kaplan v. Hezbollah, 213 F. Supp. 3d 27,

35 (D.D.C. 2016), applied in previous cases under the FSIA’s terrorism exception is that

“persons suffering injuries in terrorist attacks are entitled to $5 million in damages.” Id. (quoting

Davis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 882 F. Supp. 2d 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2012)). The baseline may be

adjusted either upward or downward. An upward departure would be warranted “in the presence

of ‘severe instances of physical and psychological pain, such as where victims suffered relatively

20
The FSIA’s private right of action permits plaintiffs to seek “economic damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c).
Plaintiffs, however, broadly request “[c]ompensatory damages including, but not limited to, . . . past and future
economic losses, including medical expenses and lost income and earning capacity . . . in amounts determined by
the Court,” Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ A, without any documentation of medical bills or payments or any evidence
of economic injury. Plaintiffs have thus failed to allege, let alone prove, the amount of economic or medical
expenses damages by a reasonable estimate, and so they cannot recover for economic damages. See Moradi v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, 77 F. Supp. 3d 57, 71 (D.D.C. 2015) (concluding the same where plaintiff had estimated
his economic loss without documentation); Kaplan v. Hezbollah, 213 F. Supp. 3d 27, 41 (D.D.C. 2016) (denying
economic damages where plaintiff did not provide documents “lending credence” to his claims of lost income);
Akins, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 39–40 (denying economic losses for failure to support claims with sufficient evidence).
“Unlike damages for pain and suffering, lost earnings” and any incurred medical expenses “are not hard to quantify,
and the Court will not excuse plaintiffs’ failure to support the claim for lost earnings” and medical expenses “with
competent evidence.” Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 71. See also Mustard, 2023 WL 1778193, at *12 n.13 (finding the
same); Ackley, 2022 WL 3354720, at * 50 (same); Christie, 2020 WL 3606273, at *23 (same); Aceto, 2020 WL
619925, at *18 (same); Schooley, 2019 WL 2717888, at *74 (same); Akins I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 39–40 (same).

62
more numerous and severe injuries, were rendered quadriplegic . . . or were mistaken for dead.’”

Id. at 35–36 (quoting Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 84). A downward departure would be warranted

“in the face of ‘minor shrapnel injuries or minor injury from small-arms fire.’” Id. at 36 (quoting

Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 84).

Pain and suffering damages are by their nature difficult to quantify. In Schooley, this

Court relied in part on an “objective metric”—the VA disability rating—to “determin[e] the

relative degree of injury suffered by each servicemember plaintiff.” Schooley, 2019 WL

2717888, at *74. That rating is the “agency’s official determination regarding the extent of

disabling injury sustained by service members in connection with military service.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). As Schooley explained, “[t]he VA disability rating, which includes

both mental and physical injuries in a single number, facilitates an approach to awarding

damages that is generally agnostic to the mental or physical nature of the injury and further

provides” an effective way of comparing injuries to ensure that similar injuries yield similar

awards. Id.; cf. Peterson, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 54 (in calculating damages, “the Court must take

pains to ensure that individuals with similar injuries receive similar awards”). Schooley’s basic

rubric is adopted in this case for the twenty-four servicemember plaintiffs with relevant VA

disability ratings. See Ackley, 2022 WL 3354720, at *51 (using Schooley’s “basic rubric” of VA

disability ratings to calculate damages amounts); Christie, 2020 WL 3606273, at *23 (same);

Aceto, 2020 WL 619925, at *18 (same). Thus, servicemember plaintiffs rated by the VA up to

30% disabled receive a baseline award of $5,000,000; plaintiffs rated 40–60% disabled by the

VA will receive an upward departure, for a total award of $6,000,000; and servicemember

plaintiffs rated 70–100% disabled by the VA will receive a further upward departure, for a total

63
of $7,000,000. See Ackley, 2022 WL 3354720, at *51 (using this approach); Christie, 2020 WL

3606273, at *23 (same); Aceto, 2020 WL 619925, at *18 (same).

Two servicemember plaintiffs did not receive VA disability ratings: Steven Lee Brodt

and the Estate of Steven Peter Goff. Nonetheless, review of these plaintiffs’ “uncontroverted

factual allegations” in their affidavits, Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 386, and, where available,

exhibits, demonstrates that they each suffered severe injuries and chronic psychological pain.

See Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 83–84; see also S. Lee Brodt Decl. ¶¶ 7–10, 15, 17 (describing “a

deep laceration” in his right foot from glass shards, for which he received a Purple Heart, and

describing psychological symptoms); S. Goff Decl. ¶¶ 11–12, 19, 23–25 (describing “a large

shard of glass [that] had gored through his chest, and shards of glass pierced his hands, feet, legs,

and shoulders,” for which he received a Purple Heart, and psychological symptoms that

unfortunately resulted in his death). Thus, these plaintiffs are entitled to awards of $5,000,000

for the cuts and lacerations they received in the bombing and the psychological symptoms they

have suffered since.

The following four servicemember plaintiffs who received VA disability ratings of up to

30% are each entitled to recover $5,000,000: John Charles Orlando, Jr., Vincent Gene Oliver,

Franko James Ferguson, and Brian Christopher Stoneburner. This finding is supported by the

following:

1. John Charles Orlando, Jr. received a 10% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. J. Orlando Decl. ¶ 22; see id., Ex.

G (VA Rating Decision).

64
 2. Vincent Gene Oliver received a 10% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. V. Oliver Decl. ¶ 9; see id., Ex. E

(VA Disabilities Record).

3. Franko James Ferguson received a 30% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. F. Ferguson Decl. ¶ 21; see id., Ex.

G (VA Decision Letter).

4. Brian Christopher Stoneburner received a 20% disability rating from the VA for

injuries he avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. B. Stoneburner Decl. ¶

22; see id., Ex. H (VA Decision Letter).

Five servicemember plaintiffs are entitled to recover in the 40–60% disabled category:

Timothy Gerard Fermanis, Kenneth David Weaver, Ronald Scott Gering, Nathan Elliot Wheat,

and David Anthony Toole. This finding is supported by the following:

1. Timothy Gerard Fermanis received a 60% disability rating from the VA for injuries

he avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. T. Fermanis Decl. ¶¶ 21–22; see

id., Ex. F (VA Rated Disabilities).

2. Kenneth David Weaver received a 40% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. K. Weaver Decl. ¶ 29; see id., Ex. I

(VA Rated Disabilities).

3. Ronald Scott Gering received a 40% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. R. Gering Decl. ¶¶ 8, 12, 17, 25;

see id., Exs. D (VA Rated Disabilities), H (VA Benefits Letter).

65
 4. Nathan Elliot Wheat received a 40% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. N. Wheat Decl. ¶ 21; see id., Exs.

H (VA Rated Disabilities), I (VA Benefits Letter).

5. David Anthony Toole received a 60% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. D. Toole Decl. ¶ 29; see id., Ex. H

(VA Decision Letter).

These five servicemember plaintiffs are each entitled to an upward departure from the baseline

award for a total award to each of $6,000,000 for their pain and suffering as survivors of the

bombing.

Finally, fifteen of the servicemember plaintiffs are entitled to recover in the 70–100%

disabled category: Jonathan Scott Gration, Barry Gordon Brown, Angela Mashel Brown, Steven

Lee Byers, Kevin Richard Mall, Aubree Brooke Staricka, Brent Alan Mullings, Sy William Yost,

Joey Laurier Morrissette, James Michael Silvi, Michael Harrington Weems, Scott Patrick Hill,

Christopher Brian Lauderback, Jason Allen Bratton, and Kenneth Michael Kowalczyk. This

finding is supporting by the following:

1. Jonathan Scott Gration received a 100% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. J. Gration Decl. ¶¶ 26–27; see id.,

Ex. H (VA Benefit Information).

2. Barry Gordon Brown received a 100% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. B. Brown Decl. ¶ 22; see id., Ex. I

(VA Rated Disabilities).

3. Angela Mashel Brown received a 80% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. A. Brown Decl. ¶¶ 20–23; see id.,

66
 Exs. F (VA Rating Decision Letter), G (VA Rated Disabilities), H (VA Rating

Decision Letter), I (VA Benefits Letter).

4. Steven Lee Byers received a 80% disability rating from the VA for injuries he avers

resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. S. Byers Decl. ¶¶ 18–22; see id., Exs. F

(VA Benefits Letter), G (VA Individual Ratings).

5. Kevin Richard Mall received a 100% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. K. Mall Decl. ¶¶ 23–24; see id.,

Exs. H (VA Benefits Letter), I (VA Disability Rating).

6. Aubree Brooke Staricka received a 90% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. A. Staricka Decl. ¶ 20; see id., Ex.

H (VA Rating Decision Letter).

7. Brent Alan Mullings received a 100% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. B. Mullings Decl. ¶ 26; see id., Ex.

H (VA Rating Decision Letter).

8. Sy William Yost received a 90% disability rating from the VA for injuries he avers

resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. S. Yost Decl. ¶¶ 22–23; see id., Ex. I

(VA Rated Disabilities).

9. Joey Laurier Morrissette received a 100% disability rating from the VA for injuries

he avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. J. Morrissette Decl. ¶ 24; see

id., Ex. G (VA Decision Letter).

10. James Michael Silvi received a 90% disability rating from the VA for injuries he

avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. J. Silvi Decl. ¶ 21; see id., Exs. H

(VA Rated Disabilities), I (VA Benefit Letters).

67
 11. Michael Harrington Weems received a 80% disability rating from the VA for injuries

he avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. M. Weems Decl. ¶ 18; see id.,

Exs. G (VA Benefits Letter), H (VA Rating Decision Letter).

12. Scott Patrick Hill received a 100% disability rating from the VA for injuries he avers

resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. S. Hill Decl. ¶ 22; see id., Exs. G (VA

Rated Disabilities), H (VA Benefits Letter).

13. Christopher Brian Lauderback received a 100% disability rating from the VA for

injuries he avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. C. Lauderback Decl. ¶¶

15–16; see id., Exs. F (VA Disability Letter), G (VA Rated Disabilities).

14. Jason Allen Bratton received a 70% disability rating from the VA for injuries he avers

resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. J. Bratton Decl. ¶ 22; see id., Ex. H (VA

Rating Decision Letter).

15. Kenneth Michael Kowalczyk received a 70% disability rating from the VA for

injuries he avers resulted from the Khobar Towers bombing. K. Kowalczyk Decl. ¶

27; see id., Exs. G (VA Benefits Letter), H (VA Rated Disabilities).

These fifteen servicemember plaintiffs are thus each entitled to an upward departure from the

baseline award, for a total award to each of $7,000,000 for their pain and suffering as survivors

of the bombing.

3. Solatium

The remaining plaintiffs seek solatium damages to compensate for the emotional distress

they experienced as family members of servicemember victims. See Compl. ¶¶ 180–84 (Count

V, solatium, consortium, pain and suffering). “[S]olatium is traditionally a compensatory

damage which belongs to the individual heir personally for injury to the feelings and loss of

decedent’s comfort and society,” Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 356 (quoting Flatow v. Islamic Republic

68
of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1, 29 (D.D.C. 1998)), but solatium damages have also been awarded to

compensate for the emotional distress of the family members of surviving victims, Wultz v.

Islamic Republic of Iran, 864 F. Supp. 2d 24, 39 (D.D.C. 2012) (explaining that “in the context

of distress resulting from injury to loved ones—rather than death—courts have applied a

framework where awards are valued at half of the awards to family members of the deceased”

(internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85 (“Relatives of

surviving servicemen received awards valued at half of the awards to family members of the

deceased.”). “Under the FSIA, a claim for solatium is nearly indistinguishable from a claim for

IIED.” Flanagan v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 87 F. Supp. 3d 93, 115 (D.D.C. 2015) (Contreras,

J.); see also Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 357. Damages recoverable on immediate-family member

plaintiffs’ claims of IIED thus will be discussed as a claim for solatium damages.

“Mental anguish, bereavement and grief resulting from” an immediate family member’s

death or injury “constitutes the preponderant element of a claim for solatium.” Fraenkel, 892

F.3d at 356–57 (alteration adopted) (quoting Flatow, 999 F. Supp. at 30). In determining the

appropriate amount to compensate victims’ family members for emotional distress, “the Court

may look to prior decisions awarding damages . . . for solatium.” Acosta, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 29.

Commonly accepted in this Court is Heiser I’s standardized framework for solatium

damages. Heiser I, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 269; see Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 403 (noting the

“framework has been adopted by other courts as an appropriate measure of solatium damages for

the family members of victims of state-sponsored terror” (citing Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85)).

Although not mandatory, see Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 361 (“There is no statutory basis for

concluding that district courts must award solatium damages in the amounts that Heiser found

commonly granted.” (emphasis in original)), the Heiser framework is adopted here for

69
consistency, see also Akins, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 43 (adopting the Heiser framework for awarding

solatium damages); Schooley, 2019 WL 2717888, at *77 (same).

The Heiser framework, as a baseline, awards spouses of deceased victims $8,000,0000,

parents and children of deceased victims $5,000,000, and siblings of deceased victims

$2,500,000. Valencia, 774 F. Supp. 2d at 15. “[F]amilies of victims who have died are typically

awarded greater damages than families of victims who remain alive,” Heiser I, 466 F. Supp. 2d

at 269 (quoting Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 425 F. Supp. 2d 56, 75 (D.D.C. 2006)), and so

the courts have awarded family members of surviving victims approximately half the baseline

awards for family members of the deceased, see Wultz, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 39; Valore, 700 F.

Supp. 2d at 85. Here, then, the applicable baseline solatium awards are $4,000,000 to spouses of

surviving victims and $2,500,000 to parents of surviving victims, see Wultz, 864 F. Supp. 2d at

39; “[c]hildren of a surviving victim receive $1.5 million on average,” Spencer v. Islamic

Republic of Iran, 71 F. Supp. 3d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2014), and siblings of surviving victims receive

$1,250,000, see Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85.

These numbers serve only as an anchor from which the Court should deviate to

compensate for specific circumstances. See Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 362 (“While past solatium

awards from comparable cases are appropriate sources of guidance for district courts, different

plaintiffs (even under [the] FSIA) will prove different facts that may well (and should) result in

different damage awards.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Decisions to deviate from the

starting points provided by the Heiser framework are committed to the discretion of the

particular court in each case.” Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Oveissi I”), 768 F. Supp. 2d

16, 26 (D.D.C. 2011); see also Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 351 (“District Court judges have

discretion . . . to grant solatium awards based on the particular facts of each case, subject to

70
abuse-of-discretion review for errors of law, clearly erroneous factual findings, and faulty

reasoning.”).

Damages for plaintiff spouses are addressed first, followed by parents, children, and

siblings.

a. Spouses

Eleven of the immediate family member plaintiffs were spouses or the functional

equivalent of spouses of service-member plaintiffs at the time of the bombing: Maria Star Yost,

Christina Marie Schomaker, Eva Ranee Graham, Jacqueline Archuleta Quintana, Judith Ellen

Gration, Ursula Leona Orlando, Tina Maria Mullings, Tamara Lee Oliver, Un Suk Brodt, Jo Ann

Silvi, and Kimberlee Jo Hill. As detailed above, each spouse describes fear for her spouse’s

physical well-being in the immediate aftermath of the bombing and the toll that the bombing has

taken since on their sense of safety, on their spouses, or on their marriages. 21

The Heiser framework awards spouses of surviving victims $4,000,000. Maria Star Yost,

Christina Marie Schomaker, Judith Ellen Gration, Ursula Leona Orlando, Tina Maria Mullings,

Tamara Lee Oliver, Un Suk Brodt, Jo Ann Silvi, and Kimberlee Jo Hill all have surviving

servicemember spouses. As such, each is awarded the full amount given to spouses of surviving

victims: $4,000,000.

Where attenuation in a relationship has occurred, such as spouses divorcing or siblings

losing touch, a downward departure is appropriate. See Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 87. Where

evidence indicates, however, that, for example, a couple eventually divorced but remained

married for years following the attack and the spouse “suffered compensable emotional trauma,”

21
See M. Yost Decl. ¶¶ 7–9, 12–15; C. Schomaker Decl. ¶¶ 9–12; E. Graham Decl. ¶¶ 9–12; J. Quintana
Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 15–18; J. Gration Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 13–18; U. Orlando Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 11–14; T. Mullings Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 10–
14; T. Oliver Decl. ¶¶ 10–12, 15–17; U. Brodt Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 12–15; J. Ann Silvi Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 13–18; K. Hill Decl.
¶¶ 8–10, 12–15.

71
the Heiser solatium framework may still be applied. Spencer, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 28–29. Two

spouses have, in the intervening period dating from the attack, divorced from their

servicemember spouses who were injured from the bombing. Eva Ranee Graham and Jacqueline

Archuleta Quintana are former spouses of injured servicemembers, Barry Gordon Brown and

Christopher Pius Nagel, respectively. Eva Graham remained married after the bombing, during

which period she avers that the “emotional anguish” she endured after Brown returned from

Saudi Arabia with a “new demeanor” made her an “emotional wreck[]” and destroyed their

marriage. E. Graham Decl. ¶¶ 16–17. Similarly, Jacqueline Archuleta Quintana and Christopher

Pius Nagel remained married for three years after the bombing, during which period she claims

that Nagel’s changed personality “constantly left [her] feeling hurt and embarrassed” and

Nagel’s resistance to receiving mental health services ultimately led to their divorce. J. Quintana

Decl. ¶¶ 11–18. Each of these divorced spouses will accordingly receive the full solatium award

of $4,000,000 as the former spouses of Barry Gordon Brown and Christopher Pius Nagel,

respectively, despite their divorces.

b. Parents

Eighteen of the immediate-family member plaintiffs will receive awards as parents of

servicemembers who were stationed at the Khobar Towers at the time of the bombing: Donna

Lee Byers, Rodney Lee Byers, Gloria Ann Mullings, Vernon Oscar Mullings, Steven Millard

Douglass, Diane Theresa Morrissette, Donald Allen Wheat, Shirley Ann Goff, Michele Ann

Canchola, Timothy Louis Canchola, Paula Gail Nott, Preston Wade Nott, Nancy Robertson

Weems, John Harold Weems, Susan Lynn White, Jerry White, Patricia Mary Kowalczyk, and

72
Kenneth Dale Kowalczyk. Their harms are consistent with those suffered by many parents of

victims of terrorism. See Valencia, 774 F. Supp. 2d at 16. 22

The parents of the injured service-members are each entitled to a baseline award of

$2,500,000. See Akins I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 44 (awarding $2,500,000 to the parents of injured

service-members). Here, eighteen parent and stepparent plaintiffs, whose children were awarded

between $5,000,000 and $7,000,000, will receive awards of $2,500,000: Donna Lee Byers,

Rodney Lee Byers, Gloria Ann Mullings, Vernon Oscar Mullings, Steven Millard Douglass,

Diane Theresa Morrissette, Donald Allen Wheat, Shirley Ann Goff, Michele Ann Canchola,

Timothy Louis Canchola, Paula Gail Nott, Preston Wade Nott, Nancy Robertson Weems, John

Harold Weems, Susan Lynn White, Jerry White, Patricia Mary Kowalczyk, and Kenneth Dale

Kowalczyk.

c. Children

Seven plaintiffs are children of servicemembers injured in the bombing and each

describes confusion or fear in the immediate aftermath of the attack or attribute difficult

relationships with their servicemember parents, at least in part, to the psychological mark the

attack had on their parents: Jonathan Scott Gration, Jr., Corey Thomas Brown, Alexis Nichole

Wingate, Steven Han Brodt, Samuel John Brodt, Angela Christine Silvi, and Alison Elizabeth

Silvi. 23 Although at least four of the children were too young at the time of the bombing to

22
D. Byers Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 13–15; R. Byers Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 13–16; G. Mullings Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 12–15; V. Mullings
Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 12–13; S. Millard Douglass Decl. ¶¶ 8–10; D. Morrissette Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 11–13; D. Wheat Decl. ¶¶ 6–
8, 18; S. Goff Decl. ¶¶ 8–11, 18–26; M. Canchola Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 16–20; T. Canchola Decl. ¶¶ 6–10, 16–17; P. Gail
Nott Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 11–12; P. Wade Nott Decl. ¶¶ 6–9, 13–15; N. Weems Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 12–15; J. Weems Decl. ¶¶ 6–
8, 14–16; S. White Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 16–18; J. White Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 13–14; P. Kowalczyk Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 16–17; K. Dale
Kowalczyk Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 14–16.
23
J. Scott Gration, Jr. Decl. ¶¶ 6–9, 13–16; C. Brown Decl. ¶¶ 6–13; A. Nichole Wingate Decl. ¶¶ 8–16; S.
Han Brodt Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 10–16; S. John Brodt Decl. ¶¶ 6, 12–15; A. Christine Silvi Decl. ¶¶ 8–14; A. Elizabeth Silvi
Decl. ¶¶ 6–9, 12–15.

73
comprehend that their parents were harmed or had been in danger, this lessened awareness does

not lessen the distress they each experienced growing up with parents suffering from

psychological symptoms from the attack. See n.22; see also Schooley, 2019 WL 2717888, at *78

(same).

As stated, “[c]hildren of a surviving victim receive $1.5 million on average” under the

Heiser framework. Spencer, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 28; Aceto, 2020 WL 619925, at *11, 22 (awarding

$1,500,000 to Kaylee Ziegler, whose father, Eric Dale Ziegler, received an award of $5,000,000

in Akins I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 47). All plaintiff children’s parents received awards between

$5,000,000 and $7,000,000, and as such, each child plaintiff will recover $1,500,000.

d. Siblings

Seventeen of the immediate family member plaintiffs are siblings, stepsiblings, or half-

siblings of servicemember plaintiffs: Joseph Eugene Byers, Susan Pauline Pomoransky, Vickie

Rena Anthony, Clinton Edward Weaver, Donald Lee Heikes, Roger Dayle Heikes, Heather

Maureen Hector, Serena Elizabeth Douglass, Sarah Grace Douglass, Natasha Kami Morrissette,

Antoinette Marie Hovel, Kathryn Mary Ableidinger, Kristine Lynnette Schomaker, Tanya Lea

Nott, Rebecca Lamae Thurman, Richard Lawrence Weems, and Aaron Charles Kowalczyk.

Each has described distress upon learning about the bombing and has suffered from the ongoing

effects of the attack on their respective siblings and families. 24 These harms are consistent with

those suffered by many siblings of victims of terrorism. See Valencia, 774 F. Supp. 2d at 15.

Within the Heiser framework, siblings of injured servicemembers awarded between $5,000,000

24
J. Byers Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 11–15; S. Pomoransky Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 10–16; V. Anthony Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 12–13, 17–
18; C. Weaver Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 10–11, 14–16; D. Heikes Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 13–17; R. Heikes Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 9–14; H. Hector
Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 9–13, 16–19; S. Elizabeth Douglass Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 12–14; S. Grace Douglass Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 11–13; N.
Morrissette Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 11–13; A. Hovel Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 11–12, 15–16; K. Ableidinger Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 14–16; K.
Schomaker Decl. ¶¶ 6–9, 13–14; T. Nott Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10–13; R. Thurman Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10–14; R. Weems Decl. ¶¶ 6–7,
9–10, 13–14; A. Kowalczyk Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 12–16.

74
and $7,000,000 are each entitled to an award of $1,250,000, with no downward departure for

proportionality required. See Akins I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 45 (awarding a baseline amount of

$1,250,000 to siblings of injured service-members).

E. Punitive Damages

In addition to compensatory damages, plaintiffs seek punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. §

1605A(c). See Compl. ¶¶ 195–99 (Count VIII); id., Prayer for Relief ¶ B. The Supreme Court

has laid out three “guideposts” for “reviewing punitive damages” awards: “(1) the degree of

reprehensibility of the defendants’ misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential

harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between

the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in

comparable cases.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003)

(citing BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996)). In addition, in Philip Morris

USA v. Williams, the Supreme Court announced that “the Constitution’s Due Process Clause

forbids . . . use [of] a punitive damages award to punish a defendant for injury that it inflicts

upon nonparties or those whom they directly represent, i.e., injury that it inflicts upon those who

are, essentially, strangers to the litigation.” 549 U.S. 346, 353 (2007).

Weighing this precedent, Christie awarded “[p]unitive damages equal to compensatory

damages” in light of the “identified flaws in the [other] methods” for determining punitive

damages. 2020 WL 3606273, at *27. Specifically, Christie determined that this method avoided

“a singular focus on deterrence,” id. at *28, as well as “elevat[ing] superficial similarities over

meaningful ones” and “skim[ing] over analysis of the plaintiffs’ precise harms,” and does not

“yield an excessive award,” id. Awarding punitive damages equal to compensatory damages,

Christie concluded, was most appropriate because “plaintiffs [were] already receiving substantial

75
compensatory awards,” id., “‘the compensatory damages for the injury suffered’ . . . [were]

‘based on a component which’ would be ‘duplicated in the punitive award,’” id. (quoting State

Farm, 538 U.S. at 426), and “[a]dding hundreds of millions of dollars to [the] amount [of

outstanding court judgments already owed by Iran] . . . [was] not likely to have a meaningful

deterrent effect,” id. at *29.

Given that Christie reached this conclusion based on the same event at issue in the

present case, the Christie punitive damages approach analysis, which was likewise applied in

Blank, 2021 WL 3021450, at *10, will also be applied here. Plaintiffs urge no alternative

approach. See Pls.’ Mem. at 46. Accordingly, a punitive damages award equal to compensatory

damages is most appropriate. Plaintiffs are entitled to a total punitive damages award of

$285,750,000 to be apportioned among plaintiffs according to their compensatory damages. See

also Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 90 (apportioning in the same fashion).

F. Prejudgment Interest

Plaintiffs next seek prejudgment interest “at the maximum rates allowable by law.”

Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ C; see also Pls.’ Mem. at 40–44. “Whether to award such interest is

a question that rests within this Court’s discretion, subject to equitable considerations.” Oveissi

II, 879 F. Supp. 2d at 58. At the same time, the majority of Judges on this Court confronted with

this issue have concluded—as this Court did in Akins I—that “pain and suffering and solatium

damages are both designed to be fully compensatory” and prejudgment interest is therefore

unwarranted. See Barry v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 437 F. Supp. 3d 15, 60 (D.D.C. 2020)

(Contreras, J.) (quoting Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic, 908 F. Supp. 2d 216, 232 (D.D.C.

2012)); see Doe A-1 v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, No. 18-cv-252 (DLF), 2021 WL

723257, at *9 (D.D.C. Feb. 24, 2021) (Friedrich, J.) (denying prejudgment interest because the

76
award “in today’s dollars fully compensates the crew members and their estates for their time

spent in captivity” (emphasis in original)); Bathiard v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 16-cv-

1549 (CRC), 2020 WL 1975672, at *8 (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2020) (Cooper, J.) (holding

“prejudgment interest is not appropriate for nonpecuniary damages already designed to provide

complete compensation”); Schertzman Cohen v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 17-cv-1214 (JEB),

2019 WL 3037868, at *10 (D.D.C. Jul. 11, 2019) (Boasberg, J.) (denying prejudgment interest

because “direct-injury and solatium awards [are] to be fully compensatory” already); Maupin v.

Syrian Arab Republic, 405 F. Supp. 3d 79, 94, 99 (D.D.C. 2019) (Spec. Master Report), adopted

by Maupin v. Syrian Arab Republic, 405 F. Supp. 3d 75 (D.D.C. 2019) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.);

Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Republic, 167 F. Supp. 3d 22, 54–55 (D.D.C. 2016) (Howell, J.).

Thus, the overarching tide of persuasive precedent in this District plainly weighs against

awarding prejudgment interest, and is even less warranted considering punitive damages are

permissible in § 1605A cases, as prejudgment interest “does not apply to punitive damages

because ‘prejudgment interest is an element of complete compensation’ and punitive damages

are non-compensatory.” Thuneibat, 167 F. Supp. 3d at 55 (quoting Wultz, 864 F. Supp. 2d at

42).

Consistent with this persuasive precedent, this Court concludes plaintiffs are not entitled

to prejudgment interest on their compensatory or punitive damages. When denying prejudgment

interest on compensatory damages in Oveissi I, Judge Lamberth explained that “[i]n adopting the

Heiser framework, this Court determined that the values set by that scale represent the

appropriate level of compensation, regardless of the timing of the attack.” Oveissi I, 768 F.

Supp. 2d at 30 n.12; see also Maupin, 405 F. Supp. 3d at 94; Thuneibat, 167 F. Supp. 3d at 54.

Indeed, nonpecuniary damages for pain and suffering and solatium “do not typically require

77
prejudgment interest because they are ‘designed to be fully compensatory.’” Id. (quoting Wyatt,

908 F. Supp. 2d at 232). As in Oveissi I, where “the Court s[aw] no reason to deviate from its

standard practice” of relying on “the values set by th[at] [Heiser] scale[, which] represent the

appropriate level of compensation” and award prejudgment interest, Oveissi I, 768 F. Supp. 2d at

30 n.12, the instant plaintiffs “have not provided any reason why awards under [the Heiser]

framework are insufficient to provide ‘complete compensation,’” Akins I, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 46

(quoting West Virginia v. United States, 479 U.S. 305, 310 (1987)). Plaintiffs are likewise not

entitled to prejudgment interest on their punitive damages. “[P]rejudgment interest does not

apply to punitive damages because ‘prejudgment interest is an element of complete

compensation’ and punitive damages are non-compensatory.” Thuneibat, 167 F. Supp. 3d at 55

(quoting Wultz, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 42). Accordingly, plaintiffs are awarded monetary damages

in the amounts established above without prejudgment interest.

G. Post-Judgment Interest

Finally, plaintiffs request post-judgment interest. See Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ C; Pls.’

Mem. at 44–45. Postjudgment interest may be awarded against a foreign sovereign when the

FSIA provides jurisdiction. See, e.g., Winternitz v. Syrian Arab Republic, No. 17-cv-2104 (TJK),

2022 WL 971328, at *12 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2022) (awarding postjudgment interest because

“[a]pplication of section 1961(a) is mandatory, not discretionary”) (quoting Schooley, 2019 WL

2717888, at *79); Doe A-1, 2021 WL 723257, at *9; Flanagan, 87 F. Supp. 3d at 127; Lanny J.

Davis & Assocs. v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, 962 F. Supp. 2d 152, 165 (D.D.C. 2013);

Dammarell v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 404 F. Supp. 2d 261, 324 (D.D.C. 2005). By federal

statute, “[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district

court[,]” and that “[s]uch interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of judgment.” 28

78
U.S.C. § 1961(a). Application of section 1961(a) is mandatory, not discretionary. See Cont’l

Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Fed. Gov’t of Nigeria, 850 F. Supp. 2d 277, 287 (D.D.C. 2012);

Lanny J. Davis & Assocs., 962 F. Supp. 2d at 165. The Court will therefore award post-

judgment interest at the statutory rate.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Defendants are liable for the

pain and suffering inflicted on the twenty-six service-member plaintiffs, for the emotional

distress inflicted on the fifty-three immediate family member plaintiffs of these and other

servicemember plaintiffs, and for punitive damages equal to compensatory damages.

Plaintiffs are awarded monetary damages in the following amounts:

1. Servicemember plaintiffs Jonathan Scott Gration, Barry Gordon Brown, Angela

Mashel Brown, Steven Lee Byers, Kevin Richard Mall, Aubree Brooke Staricka,

Brent Alan Mullings, Sy William Yost, Joey Laurier Morrissette, James Michael

Silvi, Michael Harrington Weems, Scott Patrick Hill, Christopher Brian Lauderback,

Jason Allen Bratton, and Kenneth Michael Kowalczyk, who each suffered injuries

resulting in a VA disability rating at or above 70%, are each entitled to $7,000,000 in

pain and suffering damages and $7,000,000 in punitive damages;

2. Servicemember plaintiffs Timothy Gerard Fermanis, Kenneth David Weaver, Ronald

Scott Gering, Nathan Elliot Wheat, and David Anthony Toole, who each suffered

injuries resulting in a 40–60% VA disability rating, are each entitled to $6,000,000 in

pain and suffering damages and $6,000,000 in punitive damages;

3. Servicemember plaintiffs John Charles Orlando, Jr., Vincent Gene Oliver, Franko

James Ferguson, and Brian Christopher Stoneburner, who each suffered injuries

79
 resulting in a 30% or lower VA disability rating, are each entitled to $5,000,000 in

pain and suffering damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages;

4. Servicemember plaintiffs Steven Lee Brodt and the Estate of Steven Peter Goff, who

each suffered severe injuries, are each entitled to $5,000,000 in pain and suffering

damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages;

5. Plaintiff spouses Maria Star Yost, Christina Marie Schomaker, Eva Ranee Graham,

Jacqueline Archuleta Quintana, Judith Ellen Gration, Ursula Leona Orlando, Tina

Maria Mullings, Tamara Lee Oliver, Un Suk Brodt, Jo Ann Silvi, and Kimberlee Jo

Hill are each entitled to $2,000,000 in solatium damages and $2,000,000 in punitive

damages;

6. Plaintiff parents and stepparents Donna Lee Byers, Rodney Lee Byers, Gloria Ann

Mullings, Vernon Oscar Mullings, Steven Millard Douglass, Diane Theresa

Morrissette, Donald Allen Wheat, Shirley Ann Goff, Michele Ann Canchola,

Timothy Louis Canchola, Paula Gail Nott, Preston Wade Nott, Nancy Robertson

Weems, John Harold Weems, Susan Lynn White, Jerry White, Patricia Mary

Kowalczyk, and Kenneth Dale Kowalczyk are each entitled to $2,000,000 in solatium

damages and $2,000,000 in punitive damages;

7. Plaintiff children Jonathan Scott Gration, Jr., Corey Thomas Brown, Alexis Nichole

Wingate, Steven Han Brodt, Samuel John Brodt, Angela Christine Silvi, and Alison

Elizabeth Silvi are each entitled to $2,000,000 in solatium damages and $2,000,000 in

punitive damages;

8. Plaintiff siblings and step-siblings Joseph Eugene Byers, Susan Pauline Pomoransky,

Vickie Rena Anthony, Clinton Edward Weaver, Donald Lee Heikes, Roger Dayle

80
 Heikes, Heather Maureen Hector, Serena Elizabeth Douglass, Sarah Grace Douglass,

Natasha Kami Morrissette, Antoinette Marie Hovel, Kathryn Mary Ableidinger,

Kristine Lynnette Schomaker, Tanya Lea Nott, Rebecca Lamae Thurman, Richard

Lawrence Weems, and Aaron Charles Kowalczyk are each entitled to $2,000,000 in

solatium damages and $2,000,000 in punitive damages.

Thus, the total damages award is $571,500,000.

An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously.

DATE: August 15, 2023

__________________________
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge

81