Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic

Background

This memorandum decision and order concerns motions in three related actions arising from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Certain Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs moved for partial final default judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, collectively called the Iran Defendants. Lisa Ortiz separately moved for partial final default judgment against Iran as to liability and damages.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the Ortiz and Burnett motions, denying the Ashton plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice, and awarding pain-and-suffering damages and prejudgment interest to plaintiffs listed in Exhibits A and B. No party objected to the report. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed it for clear error and adopted it.

Jurisdiction and Default

The court held that it had subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the claims—and personal jurisdiction over the Iran Defendants. It found that service of process was properly completed under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4) and § 1608(b)(3). The court also found that the Iran Defendants failed to serve an answer or other responsive pleading within the required sixty-day period, and that defaults had been entered against them.

Liability

For the U.S.-national Burnett plaintiffs, the court relied on its earlier liability judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). It also held Iran liable to Lisa Ortiz under § 1605A based on evidence previously considered by the court.

For the non-U.S.-national Burnett plaintiffs, the court held that they could bring claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(b) and New York tort law. Applying New York law, the court concluded that the plaintiffs established assault and battery claims and that the Iran Defendants aided and abetted the attacks. The court stated that the Iran Defendants’ default meant they admitted the truth of the evidence supporting those claims.

The court treated the Ashton plaintiff, Ms. Zofia Cieslik, differently. It held that a non-U.S. national could not bring a claim under § 1605A and that a plaintiff must identify a specific legal source for the claim. Because Ms. Cieslik’s motion relied on § 1605A without asserting a proper cause of action, the court denied that claim without prejudice and allowed her to amend.

Damages and Disposition

The court approved Magistrate Judge Netburn’s personal-injury damages framework and the pain-and-suffering awards listed in Exhibits A and B. The awards included $12,000,000 for Felipe David based on the severe injuries described in the opinion. The court also approved a reduction in damages for Anthony Ciarnella and awarded prejudgment interest at 4.96 percent per year, compounded annually, from September 11, 2001, through the date of judgment.

The court denied without prejudice the Ashton plaintiff’s motion as to her § 1605A claim, with leave to amend. It granted the Burnett and Ortiz plaintiffs’ motions. It entered liability judgments for Lisa Ortiz, the U.S.-national Burnett plaintiffs, and the non-U.S.-national Burnett plaintiffs on their specified claims. It also entered partial final default judgments against Iran for Ortiz and against the Iran Defendants for the Burnett plaintiffs identified in Exhibits A and B. The listed plaintiffs may later seek punitive or other damages, and plaintiffs not listed in the exhibits may submit later applications for damages consistent with future court rulings.