Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic

Background

The opinion concerns plaintiffs in the Ashton case who moved for default judgments against the Islamic Republic of Iran. They sought damages arising from the deaths of loved ones in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The motion included claims for compensation for emotional loss, called solatium damages, and economic damages caused by wrongful death. Shenan Bradhsaw separately argued that her close relationship with a victim made her the functional equivalent of an immediate family member for purposes of receiving solatium damages.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a report and recommendation on July 26, 2022. She recommended granting the plaintiffs’ motion in part and recommended the amounts of solatium damages for each plaintiff. The report also addressed prejudgment interest, later applications for punitive and economic damages, and applications by eligible plaintiffs who were not included in the motion.

Court’s Review

Under federal law, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s recommendations. The district judge must independently review properly filed objections, but reviews portions without specific objections for clear error—a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. No party filed objections, so the court conducted a clear-error review.

The court found no clear error in the report’s conclusions that Iran had been properly served, had not appeared in the action, and was liable to the plaintiffs. It also found no clear error in the application of the established framework for solatium damages for family members of September 11 victims, including the limited circumstances in which a non-immediate family member may qualify as a functional equivalent. The court specifically upheld the recommendation that Bradhsaw receive half solatium damages.

The court also approved the report’s conclusions that plaintiffs should receive prejudgment interest from September 11, 2001, through the date of judgment at 4.96 percent per year, compounded annually; that plaintiffs could apply later for punitive, economic, and other damages; and that eligible Ashton plaintiffs who had not appeared in the motion and had not previously received damages could apply for awards in later stages.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report in full and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for final judgments. Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit A received judgments for the pain-and-suffering damages listed there, plus prejudgment interest at 4.96 percent annually with annual compounding. Plaintiffs not listed in Exhibit A who had not previously received damages may submit later applications for punitive, economic, and other damages. The clerk was directed to close the identified motions.