Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic
- George Daniels
- 1:02-cv-06977
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Ashton v. al Qaeda Islamic, Judge Daniels granted Burlingame plaintiffs’ motion for pain-and-suffering judgments and prejudgment interest.
The plaintiffs listed in Exhibit A received pain-and-suffering judgments and prejudgment interest: Ling N. Young, Virginia DiChiara, Kathy Cordero, Edward A. Nicholls, and Valecia Parker. Other plaintiffs not listed who had not previously received damages may seek additional awards in later stages.
What happened
Ashton v. al Qaeda Islamic concerns a motion by plaintiffs who were at or near the September 11, 2001 attack sites and claimed personal injuries. They sought final judgments against Iran for pain and suffering.
The court reviewed Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s recommendation because no party objected to it. It found no clear error in the framework used to categorize injuries as significant, severe, or devastating, or in the recommended awards.
Judge George B. Daniels granted the motion. The listed plaintiffs received the pain-and-suffering amounts in Exhibit A, plus prejudgment interest at 4.96% annually with annual compounding; other eligible plaintiffs may apply later for additional damages.
The detailed version
- Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic · No. 1:02-cv-06977
- George Daniels
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
The opinion is part of multidistrict litigation concerning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It relates to Ashton et al. v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, et al., and Burlingame v. Bin Laden, et al. The Burlingame Plaintiffs moved for final judgments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and requested compensatory damages for pain and suffering based on personal injuries sustained during the attacks.
The moving plaintiffs were individuals who were either at the attack sites or near areas where the attacks occurred and who reported resulting injuries. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation on February 11, 2020, recommending that the motion be granted and proposing the pain-and-suffering amounts for each plaintiff.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), a district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court reviews disputed portions independently and reviews portions without proper objections for clear error, meaning a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Because no party objected, the court reviewed Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report for clear error.
Court’s Analysis
The court had adopted a personal-injury damages framework on February 14, 2020. That framework categorized injuries as “significant,” “severe,” or “devastating” and allowed the court to increase an award in exceptional circumstances.
The court held that Magistrate Judge Netburn did not err in applying that framework or in recommending pain-and-suffering damages. The plaintiffs had submitted declarations describing their injuries, and the court found that the report accurately described and categorized those injuries. It specifically upheld $12,000,000 awards for Ling N. Young and Virginia DiChiara based on devastating injuries, including severe burns and loss of mobility.
The court also approved prejudgment interest—interest accruing before the judgment date—on the damages from September 11, 2001, through the date of judgment, at 4.96% per year, compounded annually.
Disposition
The court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Judgments. It ordered judgments for pain-and-suffering damages for the plaintiffs listed in Exhibit A, in these amounts:
- Ling N. Young: $12,000,000 - Virginia DiChiara: $12,000,000 - Kathy Cordero: $10,000,000 - Edward A. Nicholls: $10,000,000 - Valecia Parker: $7,000,000
The court also ordered prejudgment interest at 4.96% per year, compounded annually. Plaintiffs who were not listed in Exhibit A and had not previously received damages may apply in later stages for punitive, economic, or other damages awards on the basis described in the order. Judge George B. Daniels directed the Clerk of Court to close the specified motions in the multidistrict litigation docket and the two related civil actions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.