MAALOUF v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 01/22/2021. (lcjdb2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HENRI MAALOUF, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 16-0280 (JDB)

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case arises out of the death of Edward Maalouf, a U.S. government employee who
was tragically killed in the 1984 terrorist bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.
Edward’s estate, widow, three sisters, and son participated in an earlier lawsuit against the Islamic
Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”) and were
awarded both compensatory and punitive damages as a result. See Doe v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 808 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011); Estate of Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 943 F. Supp. 2d
180 (D.D.C. 2013). When Edward’s oldest brother, Henri Maalouf, learned of the Doe judgment
years later, he filed the instant action on behalf of himself and the estates of his parents and his
younger brother Gaby (collectively “plaintiffs”) against Iran and MOIS. See Compl. [ECF No. 1];
Am. Compl. (July 21, 2016) (“First Am. Compl.”) [ECF No. 13]. Plaintiffs then chose to litigate
their action against Iran only, who—as in other similar lawsuits—never appeared in this Court.1
This Court previously considered plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment against Iran in

1
Plaintiffs served their complaint and their first amended complaint on Iran only. See U.S. State Dep’t Letter
(June 28, 2016) [ECF No. 11] (confirming service of plaintiffs’ complaint on the Islamic Republic of Iran); U.S. State
Dep’t Letter (Aug. 30, 2017) [ECF No. 28] (confirming service of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint on the Islamic
Republic of Iran). Likewise, plaintiffs presently move for a default judgment against Iran only. See Pls.’ Mot. for
Default J. (“Pls.’ Mot.”) [ECF No. 31] at 1 (seeking a “default judgment against Defendant the Islamic Republic of
Iran” without mention of MOIS).

1

February 2020, concluding that although “plaintiffs ha[d] stated valid causes of action [against
Iran] under state and/or foreign law,” plaintiffs had not “specif[ied] in their complaint or otherwise
a particular cause of action arising out of a specific source of law,” as binding D.C. Circuit case
law requires. Maalouf v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civ. A. No. 16-0280 (JDB), 2020 WL 805726,
at * 1, *7 (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Acree
v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Republic of
Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. 848 (2009) (“A plaintiff proceeding under the FSIA must identify a
particular cause of action arising out of a specific source of law.”). Now that plaintiffs have
amended their complaint to plead specific causes of action under D.C. law, see Am. Compl. (June
16, 2020) (“Fourth Am. Compl.”) [ECF No. 58] ¶¶ 42, 46, this Court concludes, for the reasons
explained below, that plaintiffs are entitled to a $15 million judgment against Iran.
Background
The Court assumes familiarity with its prior decision, which sets forth the factual and
procedural background of this case in greater detail. See Maalouf, 2020 WL 805726, at *1–2.
Hence, only a brief description of the key facts follows.
On January 19, 1984, President Reagan “designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism” in
response to its role in sponsoring several terrorist attacks in Lebanon, including the 1983 bombing
of the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Dammarrell v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 105, 113
(D.D.C. 2003). Months later, a second bomb exploded at the U.S. embassy annex in East Beruit,
killing at least eleven people and injuring over fifty. Doe, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 7. Edward Maalouf,
a twenty-six-year-old security guard at the U.S. embassy, was among those who died in that attack.
Fourth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23, 31; Decl. of Pl. Henri Maalouf (“Henri Maalouf Decl.”) [ECF No. 311] ¶ 1.

2

In a series of prior cases brought by victims and their families under the “terrorism
exception” in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–11, this Court
has held Iran liable for compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the Beirut embassy
bombings under different sources of federal and state law. See, e.g., Doe, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 21–
23; Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F. Supp. 2d 105, 113–15 (D.D.C. 2005). The instant
suit is nearly identical to the Doe case but involves a different set of plaintiffs. Edward’s estate,
as well as his widow, three sisters, and son, all participated in the Doe litigation and received
compensatory and punitive damage awards under D.C. law as part of the Court’s final judgment
in May 2013. See Estate of Doe, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 183–84; Henri Maalouf Decl. ¶ 7. Edward’s
brother Henri, however, only learned of the Doe suit years later, at which time he sought, on behalf
of himself and the estates of his brother Gaby and his parents, Elias and Olga, to bring the instant
action. See Henri Maalouf Decl. ¶¶ 52–53. Elias, Olga, and Gaby each survived Edward, but
passed away in 1986, 2000, and 2009, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 2–5. Henri presently resides in London.
Id. ¶ 5.
Plaintiffs effected service of their first amended complaint on Iran on August 9, 2017 in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4). See U.S. State Dep’t Letter (Aug. 30, 2017). The Clerk
of Court declared Iran in default on October 16, 2017. See Default [ECF No. 30]. This Court set
aside that default in March 2018 and dismissed plaintiffs’ action as untimely. Maalouf v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 306 F. Supp. 3d 203, 213 (D.D.C. 2018). The D.C. Circuit, however, reversed
that dismissal, holding that a district court “lacks authority to sua sponte raise a forfeited statute of
limitations defense in a FSIA terrorism case, at least where the defendant sovereign fails to
appear.” Maalouf v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 923 F.3d 1095, 1101 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
The Court then appointed a special master to make recommendations regarding plaintiffs’

3

claimed damages. See Order (August 29, 2019) [ECF No. 41]. After receiving the special master’s
report, see Redacted R. & R. of Special Master (“Special Master Report”) [ECF No. 47], the Court
considered plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment for a second time in February 2020.

The

Court concluded that although plaintiffs lacked a federal cause of action under § 1605A(c) of
FSIA, they could “rely on ‘applicable state and/or foreign law’” to assert their claims against Iran.
Maalouf, 2020 WL 805726, at *6 (quoting Doe, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 20). Thus, rather than deny
plaintiffs’ motion, the Court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to specify “a particular
cause of action arising out of a specific source of law other than FSIA,” id. (quoting Dammarell v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, Civ. A. No. 01-2244 (JDB), 2005 WL 756090, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 29,
2005)).2
Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint three times, most recently filing a fourth
amended complaint on June 16, 2020. The fourth amended complaint asserts claims against Iran
and MOIS under § 1605A(c) for causing Edward’s death, and under both § 1605A(c) and D.C.
law for loss of solatium and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Fourth Am. Compl.
¶¶ 32–35, 42. Plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment against Iran is once again before this Court
and ripe for consideration.
Legal Standard
FSIA provides “the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts.”
Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 434 (1989). While foreign
states are generally immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, see Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507
U.S. 349, 355 (1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1604, FSIA provides for federal court jurisdiction over

Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew from this case, see Min. Order (Mar. 12, 2020), and the
Court granted Henri’s motion to proceed pro se on behalf of himself and his family members’ estates, see Min. Order
(Mar. 17, 2020).
2

4

foreign states under a limited set of exceptions. Subject matter jurisdiction exists if the defendant’s
conduct falls within a specific statutory exception. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(a), 1604. And personal
jurisdiction exists if the plaintiff properly serves the defendant in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1608. See id. § 1330(b).
In order for a district court to enter a default judgment against a foreign state, “the claimant
[must] establish[] his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” Id. § 1608(e).
The “satisfactory” evidence standard can be met through “uncontroverted factual allegations”
supported by “documentary and affidavit evidence.” Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.
Supp. 2d 52, 59 (D.D.C. 2010) (citation omitted). A court may also “take judicial notice of any
fact ‘not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready determination
by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,’” including facts established
in related proceedings and other court records. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). “The district
court . . . has an unusual degree of discretion over evidentiary rulings in a FSIA case against a
defaulting state sponsor of terrorism,” and “only where the court relies upon evidence that is both
clearly inadmissible and essential to the outcome has it abused its discretion.” Owens v. Republic
of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 785–86 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“To obtain damages against a non-immune foreign state under the FSIA, a plaintiff must
prove that the consequences of the foreign state’s conduct were ‘reasonably certain (i.e., more
likely than not) to occur, and must prove the amount of damages by a reasonable estimate.’”
Salazar, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 115–16 (quoting Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680, 681 (D.C. Cir.
2003)).

5

Analysis
I. Jurisdiction
In its prior opinion, the Court determined that subject matter jurisdiction over this case
exists under FSIA’s “terrorism exception,” set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. See Maalouf, 2020
WL 805726, at * 3. As relevant here, that exception applies when (1) the defendant foreign state
participated in an “extrajudicial killing” or provided “material support or resources for such an
act,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1); (2) the foreign state was “designated as a state sponsor of
terrorism at the time” of the terrorist act and remains so designated at the time of the lawsuit, see
id. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(i)(l); and (3) the claimant or victim is a U.S. national, a member of the armed
services, or “otherwise an employee of the Government of the United States” or a government
contractor, acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the terrorist act, see id.
§ 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii).
All three requirements are satisfied in this case. The Court already has concluded that
Edward’s death was an “extrajudicial killing” for which Iran and its agents provided material
support. See Maalouf, 2020 WL 805726, at *3; Doe, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 13–16. Iran was
designated a “state sponsor of terrorism” at the time of the attack and remains so designated today.
See Maalouf, 2020 WL 805726, at *3; State Sponsors of Terrorism, U.S. Dep’t of State,
https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2021).

And Edward

Maalouf, the victim in this case, was a U.S. government employee acting within the scope of his
employment as a security guard at the time of the bombing. See Maalouf, 2020 WL 805726, at
*3; Doe, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 13.
The Court also previously determined that personal jurisdiction exists over Iran because
plaintiffs properly served Iran with their first amended complaint on August 9, 2017 via diplomatic

6

channels. See Maalouf, 2020 WL 805726, at *3 (concluding that “service was properly effected
on Iran” in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4)). Although plaintiffs have since amended their
complaint, this Court already has explained that “service of [the] Fourth Amended Complaint
[was] not required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(2).” See Min. Order
(Oct. 2, 2020).
“[A]dditions to a complaint [which are] substantial” might warrant additional service of
process under 28 U.S.C. § 1608. Dammarell v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F. Supp. 2d 218, 225
(D.D.C. 2005). But a plaintiff is not obligated to serve an amended complaint on a foreign state
where the “state has failed to appear, and is therefore in default, and where an amendment does
not add any claims but instead clarifies existing claims.” Id. at 224. Here, the fourth amended
complaint adds to the first amended complaint in three different respects: (1) by grounding
plaintiffs’ causes of action in D.C. law; (2) by rephrasing and reasserting facts alleged elsewhere
in the complaint; and (3) by incorporating additional discussions of prior court decisions
concerning the Beirut embassy bombings.3
The first addition does not require service of the fourth amended complaint because
“identify[ing] a particular cause of action arising out of a specific source of law,” only serves to
“clarif[y] existing claims.” See id. at 223–24; see also Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.
Supp. 2d 40, 46 (D.D.C. 2006) (service not necessary where amended complaint put “defendants
on notice that the claims sought by plaintiffs were grounded in state substantive law”). The second
and third additions likewise are not “substantial” changes that necessitate service of the fourth

3

The fourth amended complaint also deletes certain content from the first amended complaint, namely
plaintiffs’ request for prejudgment interest and punitive damages. These deletions also do not obligate plaintiffs to
serve the fourth amended complaint. See Prevatt v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 421 F. Supp. 2d 152, 155 (D.D.C. 2006)
(finding service of the amended complaint “not necessary” where amended complaint “simply deleted some of the
references and information that was contained in the initial complaint,” including a wrongful death count).
Furthermore, although the fourth amended complaint purports to “add[] three additional parties,” see Fourth Am.
Compl. ¶ 3, those parties were actually added in the first amended complaint, see First Am. Compl. ¶ B, 21.
7

amended complaint at this time. See Dammarrell, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 224; see also HostLogic Zrt.
v. GH Int’l, Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-982-Orl-36KRS, 2013 WL 12394254, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec.
17, 2013) (no service required where amended complaint was largely identical, except it added
some factual detail and additional allegations); Orocovis Petroleum Corp. v. Puerto Rico Ports
Auth., Civ. No. 08–2359 (GAG/BJM), 2010 WL 3420004, at *2 (D.P.R. Aug. 2, 2010) (no service
required where “amended complaint contains greater detail than the original,” but “most of that
detail is . . . a reiteration of the facts section found in the original complaint”). Hence, as the Court
previously concluded, plaintiffs need not effect service of the fourth amended complaint until after
final judgment is entered.
II. Iran’s Liability for the 1984 Beirut Embassy Bombing
With jurisdiction established, the Court turns to plaintiffs’ causes of action and Iran’s
liability for the 1984 Beirut embassy bombing. Plaintiffs sue Iran for loss of solatium and
intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) under both 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) and D.C. law,
as well as for wrongful death under § 1605A(c). See Fourth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32–35, 42. As the
Court has already determined, because plaintiffs are citizens of Lebanon, see id. ¶¶ 32–35, and do
not fall into the other categories specified in § 1605A(c), they cannot bring a federal cause of action
under § 1605A(c). See Maalouf, 2020 WL 805726, at *6–7 (explaining that “the federal cause of
action [under FSIA] is limited to claimants who are themselves citizens [of the United States],
members of the armed forces, government contractors, or the legal representatives thereof,” and
that, as “non-U.S. national family members of victims of terrorist attacks,” “plaintiffs do not satisfy
this requirement”); see also Order (May 8, 2020) [ECF No. 55] at 2–3 (denying motion for
reconsideration on this issue). Moreover, “solatium[] . . . is not an independent cause of action,
but rather is a form of damages” that is available to IIED claimants. Reed v. Islamic Republic of

8

Iran, 439 F. Supp. 2d 53, 67–68 (D.D.C. 2006). Thus, the Court will turn directly to plaintiffs’
IIED claims under D.C. law.
D.C. law “enables foreign-national family members of terrorist attack victims” to bring
IIED claims “to recover solatium damages when their allegations are reinforced by the evidence.”
Barry v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 437 F. Supp. 3d 15, 50 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Cohen v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 238 F. Supp. 3d 71, 86 (D.D.C. 2017)). To prevail on an IIED claim, “a plaintiff
must show (1) extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant, which (2) either
intentionally or recklessly, (3) causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress.” Opati v. Republic
of Sudan, 60 F. Supp. 3d 68, 76 (D.D.C. 2014). Although typically a plaintiff must also be “present
at the time” of the injury, the presence requirement is waived in FSIA terrorism cases when a
plaintiff is a “member[] of the injured victim’s immediate family.” See Kinyua v. Republic of
Sudan, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2020); see also Republic of Sudan v. Owens, 194 A.3d 38,
44 (D.C. 2018) (concluding that, under D.C. law, “when § 1605A applies, the need for the presence
requirement does not”).
Under D.C. law, “a decedent’s estate may pursue after the decedent’s death a claim the
decedent could have pursued but for his death.” Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 81 (citing Peterson v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 53 (D.D.C. 2007)); see also D.C. Code § 12-101.
Hence, as the legal representative of their estates, see Henri Maalouf Decl. ¶ 6, Henri may bring
survival actions on behalf of Gaby, Elias, and Olga as long as they could have brought IIED claims
if they were alive today.
Here, Henri, Gaby, Elias, and Olga each satisfy the requirements to prevail on an IIED
claim. “[A]cts of terrorism are ‘by their definition’ extreme and outrageous conduct,” Ewan v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 3d 236, 246 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Mwila v. Islamic

9

Republic of Iran, 33 F. Supp. 3d 36, 40 (D.D.C. 2014)), and the Court has already concluded that
Iran purposefully aided in perpetrating the 1984 Beirut embassy bombing through its material
support to terrorist forces, see Doe, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 7; see also Barry, 437 F. Supp. 3d at 46
(“[T]he Court finds it self-evident that Iran’s role in both the 1983 and 1984 bombings was
‘intended to cause the highest degree of emotional distress.’” (quoting Estate of Heiser v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 20, 26 (D.D.C. 2009)). All four individuals are members of
Edward’s immediate family: Henri and Gaby are Edward’s brothers, and Elias and Olga were his
parents. See Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 75 (D.D.C. 2010). And, as
Henri’s declaration sets forth in substantial detail, all four of them had close relationships with
Edward before the attack and suffered significantly as a result of his death. See Henri Maalouf
Decl. ¶¶ 18, 21–22, 24, 26, 37–39, 43–46; see also Ewan, 466 F. Supp. 3d at 246 (finding severe
emotional distress element met where credible testimony “compellingly evidenced the close
relationships” between the victim and plaintiffs before the attack and “the comfort and
companionship [plaintiffs] lacked” thereafter); Barry, 437 F. Supp. 3d at 51 (showing of
“immediate and ongoing pain and suffering for the family member[s]” was sufficient to
demonstrate severe emotional distress).
The Court thus concludes that Iran is liable to all plaintiffs for IIED stemming from
Edward’s death in the 1984 Beirut embassy bombing.
III. Damages
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and the costs of suit in the fourth amended
complaint.4 See Fourth Am. Compl. at 9–10. Solatium damages are awarded for IIED claims to

4
Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint also sought punitive damages and prejudgment interest on any award of
compensatory damages. See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32–33, 36–37. However, because “[a] default judgment must not
differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c), and plaintiffs
do not specifically demand these additional forms of relief in their fourth amended complaint, the Court will only

10

compensate for “[m]ental anguish, bereavement and grief” resulting from a loved one’s death or
injury. Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Ministry of Foreign Affs., 892 F.3d 348, 356–57
(D.C. Cir. 2018) (quoting Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1, 30 (D.D.C. 1998)).
The now-accepted framework in this District for awards of solatium damages in FSIA cases was
first developed in Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229, 269 (D.D.C.
2006). See Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 51 (D.D.C. 2007), abrogation
on other grounds recognized in Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 947 F. Supp. 2d 48, 65
(D.D.C.2013)). Under that framework, the standard damages awards for the immediate family
members of a deceased victim of a terrorist attack are $5 million for parents and $2.5 million for
siblings. See Mwila, 33 F. Supp. 3d at 44–45 (citing Peterson 515 F. Supp. 2d at 52); Davis v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, 882 F. Supp. 2d 7, 14 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Heiser 466 F. Supp. 2d at
269). “These numbers, however, are not set in stone,” and a court may award “greater amounts in
cases with aggravating circumstances” or “depart downward in amount where the relationship
between the claimant and the decedent is more attenuated.” Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85–87
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, plaintiffs request, and the special master recommends, awards that are consistent
with the Heiser framework, namely $2.5 million for each brother and $5 million for each parent.
See Special Master Report at 14; Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ C. The special master noted that the impact
of Edward’s death on his brothers and parents “has been profound and [] permanent.” See Special
Master Report at 14. That finding is borne out by the record. Henri describes the devastation that

consider plaintiffs’ requests for compensatory damages and the costs of suit. See, e.g., Frost v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 419 F. Supp. 3d 112, 116 (D.D.C. 2020) (“Courts have invoked Rule 54(c) to deny . . . prejudgment interest on
compensatory damage awards when that specific form of relief was not demanded in the complaint.”); Kinyua, 466
F. Supp. 3d at 11 (denying punitive damages, despite “references to punitive damages in [plaintiffs’] complaint,”
because plaintiffs had not specifically sought punitive damages “under a viable cause of action”).
11

he, Gaby, Elias, and Olga experienced as a result of Edward’s death. Henri was the one to identify
Edward’s body at the hospital and inform the family that Edward had been killed. Henri Maalouf
Decl. ¶¶ 35–36. Henri recalls “s[itting] in a chair for three days, seeing the shadow of [his] brother
circulating around [him],” and he still mourns Edward each year on the anniversary of his passing.
Id. ¶¶ 42, 49. His father “could not go to work” and was “unable to get over the shock” of losing
his son. Id. ¶ 43. “[H]is health deteriorated rapidly,” and he died two years later “never having
recovered” from his grief. Id. His mother was similarly “shattered,” and her “health worsened
dramatically” as well. Id. ¶¶ 38, 45. Gaby initially mourned Edward’s death alongside his parents,
but ultimately left home for work because he “could not stand the sadness” and “somebody had to
provide for the family.” Id. ¶¶ 39, 46. In the years that followed, the family continued to “set the
table with a place for” Edward at every Sunday lunch and “prayed that he had gone to a better
place.” Id. ¶ 47. In sum, the Court agrees that the Heiser framework provides an appropriate
measure of damages in this case, and thus will award $2.5 million each to Henri and Gaby’s estate,
and $5 million each to Elias and Olga’s estates.
Henri finally requests compensation for “costs if equitable.” Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 49. But
aside from referencing a need to pay his former attorney, see Resp. to Order of Ct. [ECF No. 60]
at 4, he has “not provided any information regarding the fees and costs sought,” and therefore, his
“request is denied without prejudice.” Maalouf, 2020 WL 805726, at *7 (quoting Aceto v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, Civ. A. No. 19-464 (BAH), 2020 WL 619925, at *23 (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2020)).
Plaintiffs may, however, “file post-judgment motions for attorneys’ fees in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) and for costs in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d)(1),” if they so choose. Id. (quoting Aceto, 2020 WL 619925, at *23).

12

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have demonstrated significant
loss as a result of Iran’s deliberate and extreme conduct in providing material support for the 1984
bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut. The Court will therefore enter judgment for plaintiffs on
their IIED claims and award plaintiffs a total of $15 million in compensatory damages. A separate
order will be issued on this date.

/s/
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
Dated: January 22, 2021

13