Dawes v. Syrian Arab Republic

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KEVIN DAWES,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 21-2730 (RC)
V. 3 Re Document Nos.: 19, 20
THE SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, :
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Kevin Dawes (“Plaintiff’ or “Dawes”) has spent 1,276 days of his life in
captivity. From October 2012 until April 2016, Dawes was held in custody by Defendant, the
Syrian Arab Republic (“Defendant” or “Syria”). Dawes alleges that, during his time in prison,
agents working on behalf of the Syrian regime subjected Dawes to horrific physical and
psychological abuse. Further alleging that Syria’s actions amounted to torture, Dawes sued Syria
under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq. Syria has not
appeared to defend its conduct, and Dawes now moves for a default judgment on both liability
and damages. See Pl.’s Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 19-2; PI.’s Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusion[s] of Law in Support of Mot. for Default J. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 19-3. For the reasons
that follow, his motion is granted.'
1 Dawes recently filed a motion seeking to “expedite the Court’s consideration of [his]
Motion for Default Judgment.” See Pl.’s Mot. to Expedite, ECF No. 21. Given that this
memorandum opinion resolves Dawes’s Motion for Default Judgment, the Court will deny
Dawes’s Motion to Expedite as moot.
Il. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
In September 2012, Dawes traveled from the United States to Turkey with plans to
continue to Syria. Mot., Ex. A, Decl. of Kevin Dawes (“Dawes Decl.”) at 3, ECF No. 19-5.
Although Dawes had trained as an electrical engineer, he was working at the time as a freelance
photojournalist. Id. §§ 2-3. He hoped to put his photojournalism skills to use in Syria. Id. 3.
Dawes arrived in Turkey in late September and, on or around October 2, crossed the
border into Syria. Id. J] 4-5. The very next day, the car in which he was traveling “was stopped
at a security checkpoint manned by armed militia.” Jd. | 6. The militiamen “pull[ed] everyone
out of the car at gunpoint,” and proceeded to “b[ind] and hood” Dawes and the other men with
whom he had been traveling. Jd. Dawes’s captors held him in a “barn stall overnight” and, the
next day, transported him to a “new building” where they interrogated him as to why he was in
Syria. Id. J] 7-8; see also Mot., Ex. B, Fed. Bureau of Investigation Letter (“FBI Letter”) at 1,
ECF No. 19-6 (confirming Dawes “was detained by the Syrian government on or about October
3, 2012”). As it would transpire, the “new building” to which Dawes had been transferred was a
prison called “Branch 248,” which was located in Damascus and operated by Syrian Military
Intelligence. Dawes Decl. at J 10; see also Mot., Ex. C., Human Rights Watch, Torture
Archipelago: Arbitrary Arrests, Torture, and Enforced Disappearances in Syria’s Underground
Prisons since March 2011 at 5, 42 (July 3, 2012), ECF No. 19-7.
Dawes ultimately spent over three and a half years in the prison. Dawes Decl. at { 10.
During that time, his captors confined him to a cell which he estimates to have been between no
more than five feet wide and eight feet long. Id. § 11. The cell lacked heat, a toilet, and natural
light. Id. { 13. Dawes’s captors gave him “dirty and inadequate bedding” but frequently
removed these items “for punitive reasons,” leaving Dawes no way to keep himself warm. Jd.
As a result, Dawes “often could not sleep because of the cold.” Jd. To make matters worse,
Dawes shared his cell with “extreme numbers” of rats, cockroaches, and lice. Id. § 14.
The conditions of Dawes’s confinement were one of many factors that caused his health
to deteriorate significantly over time. The lice, for example, caused Dawes to develop skin
lesions (of which he still bears scars), and also caused his eyes to “swell shut due to [Dawes’s]
hyper-allergenicity [to] their feces.” Jd. Dawes’s captors also denied him the ability to maintain
even the most basic hygiene. They “almost never allowed [Dawes] to bathe or shower” and they
prohibited him from having a toothbrush. Jd. § 15. As a consequence, Dawes’s teeth “turned
orange” and he developed “dental abscesses that were very painful.” Jd. Dawes did not receive
any medical attention, and thus “live[d] with [the abscesses] until they drained on their own.” Id.
At one point during his confinement, Dawes “contracted dysentery.” Jd. § 16. Despite
his illness, the guards “forced [him] to defecate in [his] cell,” which did not contain a toilet. Id.
His bout with dysentery left him “unable to eat” and he “eventually lost so much weigh that [his]
clothes” no longer fit. Jd. In addition to dysentery, Dawes also contracted tuberculosis during
his time in prison. Jd. { 17.
Extremely unsanitary conditions and bouts with severe illness were not the only issues
Dawes encountered. To the contrary, Dawes recounts that, after he had been imprisoned for
several weeks, guards began subjecting him to “seem[ingly] . . . endless[]” sessions of torture.
Id.4 19. During some (but not all) of these sessions, guards interrogated him, accused him of
“being a CIA agent,” and attempted to “brainwash” him by dubbing him with “new names and
then forcing [him] to use those names or face even more torture.” Jd. Dawes confronted a
“choice” in these sessions: he could either “lie” by confirming his interrogators’ accusations or
he could choose not to confess. Jd. 420. If he chose the former, he might be “rewarded” with
“food, water, and medical aid”; whereas if he chose the latter, he faced additional torture. Jd.
Dawes also describes other forms of physical abuse. He states that his captors beat him
with “wooden canes, . . . heavy electrical conduit wiring, a fan belt, and rubber batons.” Jd. § 22.
The guards also occasionally “chain[ed] [his] arms above [his] head in a doorway through a set
of bars and us[ed] [him] as a human punching bag.” Jd. Separately, they subjected him to a
“horrific and extremely painful” form of abuse referred to as “[d]ry drowning.” Id. § 23. This
involved his “captors handcuff[ing] [him] to [brackets high on a] wall so that [his] arms were
fully extended over [his] head.” Jd. In this position, his feet could “barely touch the floor” and
he “had to fight to stand on the tips of [his] toes.” Jd. As he tired and “attempted to lower [his]
feet to the floor for relief, [he] could not breathe.” Jd. His captors kept him chained in that
“position for hours at a time, until [he] was on the verge of asphyxiation, and only then would a
guard let [him] down from the wall.” Jd.
In addition, Dawes’s jailors frequently placed him in “stress positions.” Jd. 24. For
example, they tied him “to a metal gate with [his] hands and arms handcuffed above [his]
shoulders and [his] feet flat on the ground for hours at a time,” causing all of the blood to drain
from his arms. Jd. On one occasion, he remained in that position for five consecutive days and
was “not permitted to sleep.” Id. He was unable to “speak for almost six weeks” thereafter. Id.
Dawes describes a separate instance during which his “interrogators smashed [his] right
foot with a heavy electrical conduit wire,” causing his foot to swell and develop blisters. Id. {
25. When the skin on his foot “turn[ed] black” and began to ooze “black pus,” his “captors gave
[him] antibiotics” but to no avail. Id. Eventually, his condition worsened to such an extent that
his “captors had to transfer [him] to a hospital in Damascus.” Jd. He spent approximately a
month in the hospital, during which time he had three surgeries on his foot. Id. Fee)
In addition to the physical abuse Dawes suffered, he was also subjected to significant
psychological abuse. Dawes reports that, from his cell, he “heard other prisoners [including
women and children] begging and shrieking in pain and being tortured.” Jd. | 12. He also was
forced to watch as guards “tortured and abused” other prisoners. Id. { 26. Dawes recalls two
particularly horrific experiences: one in which he “saw the guards rape an adult male prisoner
while he was chained to a wall,” and another in which he watched as “a blindfolded child [was]
restrained by a guard outside a room where prisoners were routinely tortured.” Jd.
As time passed and Dawes remained in prison, he began to believe that his “death was
inevitable” and that he would never “escape or be rescued.” Jd. J 28-29. But, fortunately,
relief did eventually arrive. In December 2014, Syria admitted that it was detaining Dawes. FBI
Letter at 1. Following Syria’s admission, Czech diplomats visited him in prison. Dawes Decl. at
4 33. Their visits continued through March 2016, and Syria finally released Dawes on April 1,
2016. FBI Letter at 1.
Since his release, Dawes has endured additional difficulties stemming from his time in
Syria.
Dawes has also had difficulty finding employment since 2016. He briefly worked “as an
intern for a company called Advantest,” but because his engineering “skills had degraded during
the years [he] was held in Syria” he was unable to continue in the role. Dawes Decl. at § 39.
Over the last six years, therefore, Dawes has mainly worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats.
Id. § 40.
B. Procedural Background
Dawes filed this suit against Syria on October 15, 2021. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Syria
failed to answer, and, in August of 2022, Dawes requested—and was granted—an entry of
default. See Pl.’s Mot. for Entry of Default, ECF No. 16; Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 17.
Dawes now moves for default judgment on both liability and damages. See generally Mot.
Il. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Default Judgment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 sets forth a two-step process for a party seeking
default judgment: entry of default, followed by entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; see
also Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indust. Pension Fund v. Rose City Glass Co., 729 F. Supp. 2d
336, 338 n.3 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th
Cir. 1986); Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir. 1981)). First, after a defendant has
failed to plead or otherwise defend against an action, the plaintiff may request that the clerk of
the court enter default against that defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, following the
clerk’s entry of default, and where the plaintiff's claim is not for a sum certain, Rule 55(b)(2)
permits the plaintiff to apply to the court for entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
By providing for a two-step process, Rule 55 provides the defendant an opportunity to move the
court to set aside the default before the court enters default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b){c).
Although entry of default judgment may at times be appropriate, it is “not automatic.”
Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 228 F. Supp. 3d 64, 74 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Mwani v. Bin
Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted)). Because “strong policies favor the
resolution of disputes on their merits,” the court “normally” must view the default judgment 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 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (per
curiam)). Even if a defendant appears “essentially unresponsive,” id., the court still has an
“affirmative obligation” to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, see James
Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The court must also
“satisfy itself that it has personal jurisdiction before entering judgment against an absent
defendant.” Mwani, 417 F.3d at 6-7. “Although the plaintiff[] retain[s] ‘the burden of proving
personal jurisdiction,” “[i]n the absence of an evidentiary hearing,” [the] plaintiff[] can “satisfy
that burden with a prima facie showing.” Braun, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 74 (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Mwani, 417 F.3d at 6-7). To make the required prima facie showing, a
plaintiff may rely on his “pleadings, bolstered by such affidavits and other written materials as
[he] can otherwise obtain.” Mwani, 417 F.3d at 6-7.
B. Evidentiary Showing Required by the FSIA
A court addressing a FSIA claim can enter default judgment against a foreign state only if
“the claimant[s] establish[] [their] right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1608(e); see also Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228, 232 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“The
court... has an obligation to satisfy itself that plaintiffs have established a right to relief.”). This
statutory standard mirrors the default judgment standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
55(d). See Hamen v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 401 F. Supp. 3d 85, 90 (D.D.C. 2019) (citing
Owens v. Republic of Sudan (“Owens IT’), 864 F.3d 751, 785 (D.C. Cir. 2017), vacated and
remanded sub nom. Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 140 S. Ct. 1601 (2020); Hill v. Republic of Iraq,
328 F.3d 680, 683 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). The “FSIA leaves it to the court to determine precisely
how much and what kinds of evidence . . . plaintiff[s] must provide, requiring only that it be
‘satisfactory to the court.’” Han Kim v. Democratic People.’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044,
1047-48 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e)). A court making a determination about
the evidence required must bear in mind Congress’s statutory purpose in enacting a private right
of action in section 1605A of the FSIA: to “compensate[] the victims of terrorism [and thereby]
punish foreign states who have committed or sponsored such acts and deter them from doing so
in the future.” Jd. at 1048 (quoting Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (“Price
P’), 294 F.3d 82, 88-89 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). In parsing the evidence that plaintiffs offer, “[c]ourts
may rely on uncontroverted factual allegations that are supported by affidavits.” Roth v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 78 F. Supp. 3d 379, 386 (D.D.C. 2015) (citing Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163, 171 (D.D.C. 2010)). “Uncontroverted factual allegations that are
supported by admissible evidence are taken as true.” Braun, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 74-75 (citing
Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 386; Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53, 63 (D.D.C.
2008)); see also Estate of Botvin ex rel. Ellis y. Islamic Republic of Iran, 510 F. Supp. 2d 101,
103 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F. Supp. 2d 90, 94-95
(D.D.C. 2006)).
IV. ANALYSIS
Before considering liability or damages in this FSIA case, the Court must first confirm it
has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims and personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. See Barry v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Barry I’), 410 F. Supp. 3d 161, 172 (D.D.C.
2019). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over
this suit pursuant to the FSIA, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Syria, and that
Dawes has established liability and is entitled to damages.
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction”
The FSIA provides “the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the
United States.” Owens v. Republic of Sudan (“Owens I’), 826 F. Supp. 2d 128, 148 (D.D.C.
2011). Although the FSIA generally grants foreign states complete immunity from suit, see 28
U.S.C. § 1604, it also establishes specific exceptions to that broad grant of immunity. See
Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9, 13-14 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Ifthe defendant’s
conduct falls within one of the enumerated exceptions, federal district courts possess subject
matter jurisdiction over claims arising from the defendant’s acts. See id. at 14; see also Owens L,
826 F. Supp. 2d at 148. The plaintiff bears the “initial burden of production” to show that an
exception applies. Barry I, 410 F. Supp. 3d at 173 (quoting Owens II, 864 F.3d at 784).
2 28 U.S.C. § 1330 confers federal district courts with “original jurisdiction” in FSIA
cases. The statute provides that original jurisdiction exists “without regard to amount in
controversy” in “any nonjury civil action against a foreign state” that “seeks relief in personam,”
and for which “the foreign state is not entitled to immunity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a). In this case,
Dawes has not demanded a jury trial and seeks only monetary damages, see generally Compl.,
and Syria is plainly a foreign state. Thus, the Court will focus on the final element: whether
Syria is “not entitled to immunity,” such that the Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction
over Dawes’s claim.
“{JJurisdiction attaches” if the plaintiff satisfies this burden and “the defendant fails to present
any evidence in rebuttal.” Owens II, 864 F.3d at 784.
Relevant here is the so-called “terrorism exception” to sovereign immunity, which is
codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. The terrorism exception provides that “[a] foreign state shall not
be immune from the jurisdiction” of United States courts where (1) “money damages are sought”
(2) “against a foreign state” for (3) “personal injury or death” that (4) “was caused” (5) “by an
act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material
support or resources for such an act.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1); see Colvin v. Syrian Arab
Republic, 363 F. Supp. 3d 141, 153 (D.D.C. 2019).
Dawes’s claims against Syria satisfy each of these conditions. First, Dawes seeks to
recover money damages. See Compl. at 11. Second, Syria qualifies as a foreign state. Third,
Dawes alleges personal injury, including severe physical, mental, and emotional harm. See Mot.
at 17-20. Fourth, those injuries were caused by Syria through its agents at Branch 248. See
Barry I, 410 F. Supp. 3d at 174 (explaining that “[c]ausation in a FSIA suit is established when
the plaintiff shows proximate cause, or ‘some reasonable connection’ between the defendant’s
act and ‘the damages which the plaintiff has suffered’” (quoting Valore v. Islamic Republic of
Tran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 66 (D.D.C. 2010))). And finally, as discussed in more detail
immediately below, Syria’s conduct and its treatment of Dawes meet the statutory definition of
“torture.”
The FSIA’s definition of “torture” mirrors the definition established in section 3 of the
Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (“TVPA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(h)(7). The TVPA defines
“torture” as
any act, directed against an individual in the offender’s custody or physical
control, by which severe pain or suffering[,] . .. whether physical or mental, is
10
intentionally inflicted on that individual for such purposes as obtaining from that
individual or a third person information or a confession, punishing that
individuall,] . . . intimidating or coercing that individual or a third person, or for
any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
TVPA § 3(b), Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350. In most
cases, the issue of whether the defendant’s conduct constitutes torture will turn on two factors.
See Abedini v. Gov’t of Islamic Republic of Iran, 422 F. Supp. 3d 118, 129 (D.D.C. 2019). The
first factor—the severity requirement—looks to “the degree of pain and suffering that the alleged
torturer intended to, and actually did, inflict upon the victim.” Price I, 294 F.3d at 93. For
conduct to rise to the level of “torture,” the pain and suffering inflicted must have been
sufficiently “severe.” Radmanesh v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 6 F.4th 1338, 1342 (D.C. Cir.
2021). The second factor—the purpose requirement—considers whether the “production of pain
[and suffering was] purposive, and not merely haphazard.” Price [, 294 F.3d at 93; see also
Sotloff v. Syrian Arab Republic, 525 F. Supp. 3d 121, 137 (D.D.C. 2021) (“To establish torture,
the plaintiffs must . . . show that the conduct was sufficiently severe and purposeful.”).
Here, the pain and suffering that Syria inflicted upon Dawes easily satisfies the severity
requirement. For years, Syrian guards locked Dawes in a tiny, vermin-infested cell without heat
or a toilet. Dawes Decl. 9] 13-14. They regularly denied him medical care, food, water, and the
ability to maintain basic hygiene. Id. JJ 15-16, 18. On top of this, they subjected him to
systematic beatings and interrogation sessions. Jd. {] 19-22. And more than once, they forced
him into incredibly painful positions that rendered him barely able to breathe, id. § 23, or
completely unable to sleep, id. { 24. These acts caused Dawes profound and lasting agony that,
to some extent, still persists to this day. See Price I, 294 F.3d at 93 (explaining that “[t]he more
intense, lasting, or heinous the agony, the more likely it is to be torture”). Syria’s conduct
reflects the type of “extreme, deliberate and unusually cruel practices” that other courts have
11
held to constitute torture. Radmanesh, 6 F.4th at 1343 (quoting Price I, 294 F.3d at 92); see id.(listing the following as examples of torture: “sustained systematic beating, application of
electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause
extreme pain” (quoting Price I, 294 F.3d at 92-93); Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 129 (holding that
defendant tortured plaintiff by regularly beating him, placing him in “stress positions,” and
denying him medical treatment); Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 77 F. Supp. 3d 57, 68
(D.D.C. 2015) (finding that defendant tortured plaintiff by beating him and “keeping him in
excruciatingly painful positions for hours at a time”); Azadeh v. Gov’t of Islamic Republic of
Iran, No. 16-CV-1467, 2018 WL 4232913, at *11—12 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2018) (finding that
defendant tortured plaintiff by confining her in a small cell with an “insect-infested rug” and no
toilet, denying her medical care, and subjecting her to endless interrogations). The severity
requirement has therefore been satisfied.
As for the second factor, Syria’s conduct was clearly “intentional and malicious,” “not
merely haphazard.” Price I, 294 F.3d at 93. Syrian interrogators questioned Dawes ceaselessly
about his presence in Syria. They accused him of working as a CIA operative and “running a
spy network in Syria.” Dawes Decl. § 19. It is not entirely clear whether the interrogators
believed their own accusations, but that fact is immaterial. Rather, it is sufficient that Dawes’s
captors interrogated him—and inflicted pain and suffering while doing so—in order to obtain
information regarding his presence in Syria and to manipulate him into confessing that he was a
spy. See Radmanesh, 6 F.4th at 1343 (explaining that the purpose requirement is satisfied if pain
and suffering is inflicted “to obtain information or a confession”); Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at
130 (finding purpose requirement satisfied where Iranian agents sought to get plaintiff to “falsely
confess that he was a CIA spy”). This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Syrian guards
12
also frequently inflicted pain and suffering on Dawes as a means of punishing him. See
Radmanesh, 6 F 4th at 1342 (explaining purpose requirement is satisfied if pain and suffering is
inflicted “to punish”).
Because the pain and suffering that Syria inflicted upon Dawes was both sufficiently
severe and purposive, the Court concludes that Syria’s conduct constitutes “torture” under the
FSIA. That being so, Dawes has carried his burden of demonstrating that the terrorism exception
applies, and that Syria is therefore not immune from suit.
One more step remains, however, before the Court may conclusively determine that it has
subject matter jurisdiction over Dawes’s claims. That is because section 1605A grants federal
courts power to “hear a claim” arising under that section only if three additional conditions are
satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2). First, the foreign state must have been designated as a
“state sponsor of terrorism at the time of the act,” and must “remain[] so designated when the
claim is filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(i)(D. Second, the “claimant or the victim” must
have been a national of the United States, a member of the armed forces, or “otherwise an
employee of the Government of the United States[] or . . . an individual performing a contract
awarded by the United States Government, acting within the scope of the employee’s
employment” at the time of the act. Id. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii). And third, “in a case in which the
act occurred in the foreign state against which the claim has been brought,” the claimant must
have “afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim.” Id. §
1605A(a)(2)(A)(iii); see also Mohammadi, 782 F.3d at 14; Schertzman Cohen v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, No. 17-1214, 2019 WL 3037868, at *3 (D.D.C. July 11, 2019).
The Court finds that all three conditions are satisfied. First, Syria was designated as a
state sponsor of terrorism in 1979, see Revision of Foreign Policy Controls on Exports to Syria,
13
Iraq, Libya, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, 45 Fed. Reg. 33956 (May 21,
1980), and has remained so designated ever since, see U.S. Dep’t of State, State Sponsors of
Terrorism, https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ (last visited October 2, 2023); see
also Sotloff, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. Second, Dawes was a United States citizen for the entire
time he was detained in Syria, see Dawes Decl. at 4 1, and “United States citizens are nationals
for FSIA purposes,” Sotloff, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 135. Finally, Dawes afforded Syria a reasonable
opportunity to arbitrate the claim. The FSIA “does not require any particular form of offer to
arbitrate, simply the extension of a ‘reasonable opportunity.’” Sotloff, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 135
(quoting Warmbier v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 356 F. Supp. 3d 30, 45 (D.D.C.
2018)). On the same day he filed his Complaint, Dawes filed an offer “to submit the claims
asserted in the above-captioned matter to arbitration in accordance with accepted international
rules of arbitration.” Offer to Arbitrate at § 1, ECF No. 2. Dawes also ensured that a translated
version of the offer was mailed to Syria along with copies of the complaint and summons. See
Aff. Requesting Foreign Mailing at 1, ECF No. 4-1. Syria did not respond. As a result, this
element is satisfied. See Sotloff, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 135.
Accordingly, all of section 1605A’s subject matter jurisdictional requirements are met,
and Syria’s sovereign immunity is waived with respect to Dawes’s claims.
B. Personal Jurisdiction
An additional jurisdictional question facing this Court is whether Dawes has met the
FSIA’s separate procedural requirements regarding personal jurisdiction. “Personal jurisdiction
exists over a non-immune sovereign so long as service of process has been made under section
1608” of the statute. Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran (“Heiser I”), 466 F. Supp. 2d
229, 255 (D.D.C. 2006) (citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b) (“[P]ersonal jurisdiction over a
14
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 this title.”). Section 1608
provides four ways to effect service: (1) “special arrangement for service between the plaintiff
and the foreign state or political subdivision;” (2) “in accordance with an applicable international
convention on service of judicial documents;” (3) in cases where the first two methods do not
suffice to effect service, “by sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit”
including translations “into the official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail
requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of
the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned,” or (4) if the third method also fails,
by sending two copies of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit,
together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state,
by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by
the clerk of the court to the Secretary of State in Washington, District of
Columbia, to the attention of the Director of Special Consular Services—and the
Secretary shall transmit one copy of the papers through diplomatic channels to the
foreign state and shall send to the clerk of the court a certified copy of the
diplomatic note indicating when the papers were transmitted.
28 U.S.C. § 1608(a).
Neither option one nor option two applies here. Dawes does not have a “special
arrangement” with Syria, nor is there an “applicable international convention.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1608(a); Sotloff, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 141. Dawes therefore attempted to effectuate service using
the third method. See Aff. Requesting Foreign Mailing, ECF No. 4 (request by Dawes’s counsel
that Clerk of Court mail a copy of the summons, complaint, and notice of suit by registered mail
to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Syrian Arab Republic). When service was not
successful with this method, Dawes resorted to the fourth method and requested that the Clerk
“dispatch service through diplomatic channels, as provided in § 1608(a)(4).” Request for
Service of Process on Def. (Jan. 20, 2022) at 1, ECF No. 11-1. Dawes included “two copies of
15
the summons, civil cover sheet, complaint and a notice of suit, together with two copies of each
translation [in Arabic],” and requested that the materials be sent “by the Clerk of the Court to the
Secretary of State in Washington, District of Columbia, to the attention of the Director of Special
Consular Services.” Jd. at 2. The Clerk of the Court thereafter indicated that the papers were
transmitted to the State Department pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4), Certificate of Clerk (Jan.
25, 2022), ECF No. 13, and later provided notice that the documents were transmitted through
diplomatic channels as the statute requires, see Return of Service Affidavit, ECF No. 15 (stating
that the “documents were delivered to the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs under cover of
diplomatic note No. 1239-1/2022, dated June 14, 2022 and delivered on June 23, 2022”). Thus,
Dawes has satisfied section 1608’s service of process requirements, and the Court may exercise
personal jurisdiction over Syria.
C. Liability
With these jurisdictional issues settled, the Court may now address the question of
liability. Dawes brings his claims for relief directly under section 1605A(c) of the FSIA.
Compl. at 8. As relevant here, section 1605A(c) creates a private right of action through which
United States nationals may seek to hold foreign states liable for “personal injury . . . caused by
acts” of torture. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c); see Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 131. But even though
section 1605A(c) creates a private right of action, a plaintiff still must “prove a theory of liability
which justifies holding the defendant[] culpable for the injuries that the plaintiff] allege[s] to
have suffered.” Mueller v. Syrian Arab Republic, No. 18-CV-01229, 2023 WL 1398434, at *14
(D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2023) (quoting Fain v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 856 F. Supp. 2d 109, 122
(D.D.C. 2012)); see Barry I, 410 F. Supp. 3d at 176 (“[A] FSIA plaintiff must further ‘prove a
theory of liability[]’ to establish a claim for relief that entitles [him] to damages.” (quoting
16
Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 73)). Because section 1605A(c) does not itself set forth potential
theories of liability, FSIA plaintiffs “generally” turn to “the lens of civil tort liability” to
articulate the justification for their recovery. Rimkus, 750 F. Supp. 2d at 176. “Based on the
D.C. Circuit’s guidance, district courts in this jurisdiction ‘rely on well-established principles of
law, such as those found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts and other leading treatises, as well
as those principles that have been adopted by the majority of state jurisdictions’ to define the
elements and scope of these theories of recovery.” Worley v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 75 F.
Supp. 3d 311, 335 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 879 F. Supp. 2d
44, 54 (D.D.C.2012)).
Here, Dawes moves for relief under three theories of liability: assault and battery,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. Compl. at 9-11; see Mot. at
20-23. The Court will address each theory in turn.
1. Assault and Battery
Dawes first contends that Syria is liable for assault and battery. See Compl. ff] 31-35;
Mot. at 21-22. “An assault occurs when one person (a) ‘acts intending to cause a harmful or
offensive contact with the person of the other... , or an imminent apprehension of such a
contact, and (b) the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.’” Stansell v. Republic of
Cuba, 217 F. Supp. 3d 320, 343 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21).
Recurrent acts of torture conducted over a prolonged period of imprisonment, by their very
nature, “subject the victim to ‘imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact’ at all
times.” Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 132 (quoting Sutherland v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 151 F.
Supp. 2d 27, 48 (D.D.C. 2001)). Put another way, individuals who, like Dawes, are tortured over
the course of a term of imprisonment “withst[and] a continuous . . . tortious assault” that infects
17
every moment of their captivity.” Sutherland, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 48 (finding assault where
plaintiff “lived for over six years in an environment where, at any moment, he might [be]
harassed or beaten for virtually no reason at all”). Given the facts recounted above, Syria is
plainly liable for assault.
As for battery, that tort “occurs when one person (1) ‘acts intending to cause a harmful or
offensive contact with the person of the other . . . or an imminent apprehension of such a contact,
and (2) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.’” Stansell,
217 F. Supp. 3d at 342 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13). “Harmful conduct”
includes “any physical impairment of the condition of another’s body, or physical pain or
illness.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13. Here, there is no question that Syrian officials
battered Dawes when, for example, they struck him with wooden canes and rubber batons,
chained him to walls, or forced him to remain awake for five consecutive days. See Abedini, 422
F. Supp. 3d at 127, 133 (holding Iran liable for battery where Iranian agents “whipped,”
“shocked,” and “beat[]” plaintiff); Stansell, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 342 (“[T]he acts of physical
torture—e.g., chaining the hostages to one another and to trees, forcing them to breathe gasoline
fumes, imposing unwanted medical treatment on them—were direct, intentional, harmful
contacts.”); Sutherland, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 48 (finding defendant liable for battery for “beating
[plaintiff] with a rubber hose”). Thus, Dawes has demonstrated that Syria may be held liable
based on a theory of battery.
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Dawes also asserts that Syria may be found liable based on a theory of intentional
infliction of emotional distress (“ITED”). See Compl. § 36-40; Mot. at 22-23. A defendant is
liable for ITED “when he, ‘by extreme and outrageous conduct[,] intentionally or recklessly
18
causes severe emotional distress to’ the plaintiff.” Stansell, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 343 (quoting
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46). Again, the Court has little difficulty concluding that
Syria—through its agents—intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress upon Dawes. As
described above, Branch 248 prison guards intentionally subjected Dawes to various forms of
physical and psychological torture which, by definition, constitutes “‘extreme and outrageous’
conduct.” Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 133 (quoting Price I, 294 F.3d at 91-92). Among other
things, Dawes’s captors confined him in squalid conditions, denied him access to basic hygiene
and medical care, forced him to defecate in his cell when he was sick, and made him watch as
other prisoners were tortured, abused, and raped. Dawes Decl. at {J 13-16, 26. Lola
e-1328.27. 13-11
Syria is therefore liable to Dawes based on a theory of IIED. See Stansell, 217 F. Supp. 3d at
343 (holding that plaintiffs could recover under an ITED theory where they suffered severe
mental anguish as a result of being “denied medical care,” “kept in cages,” and “prevented from
performing basic bodily functions and needs”); Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 133, 139 (finding
Iran liable for IIED where its actions caused plaintiff to suffer PTSD and clinical depression).
3. False Imprisonment
Finally, Dawes seeks to hold Syria liable under a theory of false imprisonment. See
Compl. $f 41-45; Mot. at 22. Liability for false imprisonment arises when “one person ‘(a) acts
intending to confine the other .. . within boundaries fixed by the actor, . . . (b) his act directly or
indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, and (c) the other is conscious of the
confinement or is harmed by it.’” Stansell, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 343 (quoting Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 35). Additionally, the plaintiff must demonstrate the “unlawfulness of” his
confinement. Harris v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 776 F.3d 907, 912 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
19
(quoting Edwards v. Okie Dokie, Inc., 473 F.Supp.2d 31, 44 (D.D.C. 2007)); Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384, 389 (2007) (explaining that “[t]he sort of unlawful detention remediable by the tort
of false imprisonment is detention without legal process”). All of the elements of the tort are
easily satisfied here. The evidence establishes that Syria held Dawes in custody for over three-
and-a-half years, that it did so without affording Dawes any legal process whatsoever, and that
Dawes was both aware of his imprisonment and greatly harmed by it. Accordingly, Syria is
liable to Dawes, under principles of false imprisonment, for the pain and suffering he endured as
a result of the conditions of his confinement.
D. Damages
The final question facing this Court is the proper measure of damages to award. Dawes
seeks to recover compensatory damages for (1) the pain and suffering he endured both during
and after his release as well as (2) his economic loss. Dawes also seeks punitive damages.
1. Compensatory Damages
The FSIA expressly allows plaintiffs to pursue damages for “pain and suffering” as well
as those for “economic” loss. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c); see Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 136. To
recover such damages, the plaintiff “must prove that the consequences of the [defendant’s] acts
were reasonably certain to occur, and he must prove the amount of damages by a reasonable
estimate.” Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 136 (internal alteration omitted) (quoting Moradi, 77 F.
Supp. 3d at 69). For the reasons discussed above, it is readily apparent that Syria’s actions were
“reasonably certain” to injure Dawes. See Hekmati v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 278 F. Supp. 3d
145, 163 (D.D.C. 2017) (“Pain and suffering, past and future, are obviously a reasonably certain
consequence of torture.”). The Court will therefore focus on whether Dawes has adduced
sufficient proof that the damages figures he seeks are “reasonable estimates” of the losses he
20
suffered. In doing so, the Court bears in mind that “expert testimony and prior awards for
comparable injury” are useful guides in determining a reasonable estimate of a plaintiff's losses.
Warmbier, 356 F. Supp. 3d at 55.
a. Pain and Suffering
Dawes has presented detailed, shocking evidence of the mental and physical suffering he
endured in Syria. He now seeks $40 million as recompense for that suffering—a sum that
includes $20 million for the pain he suffered during his time in prison and an additional $20
million for the pain he bore (and continues to bear) following his release. See Mot. at 23-24.
Pre-Release Pain and Suffering. \t perhaps goes without saying that it is difficult to put a
number on the intense harms that Dawes suffered while in Syrian custody. But that difficulty is
not unique to this case, and, over time, courts have developed a consistent approach—a per-diem
formula that awards victims “$10,000 per day of captivity”’—to compensate those victims for
injuries sustained while they were imprisoned. Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 136-37 (collecting
cases applying this formula). Courts have applied this formula in numerous cases, and they have
done so largely irrespective of the amount of time that a given plaintiff was detained. See, e.g.,
Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 70 (awarding $1.68 million for 168 days of detention); Price v.
Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (“Price IP’), 384 F. Supp. 2d 120, 135-36 (D.D.C.
2005) (awarding $1.05 million for 105 days of captivity); Kilburn v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
699 F. Supp. 2d 136, 156-57 (D.D.C. 2010) (awarding $5.03 million for 503 days of captivity);
Sutherland, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 51 (awarding $23.54 million for 2,354 days of captivity);
Anderson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 90 F. Supp. 2d 107, 113 (D.D.C. 2000) (awarding $24.54
million for 2,454 days of captivity); but see Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic, 908 F. Supp. 2d 216,
231-32 (D.D.C. 2012) (awarding $5 million for 21 days of captivity).
21
Syria held Dawes captive for 1,276 days. Mot. at 25. Applying the $10,000-per-day rule
of thumb entitles Dawes to $12,760,000 in damages for his pre-release pain and suffering.
Dawes contends, however, that $12.76 million is “inadequate.” Jd. at 26. He therefore
urges the Court to depart from the “arbitrary” custom of awarding $10,000 per day, and instead
award him “at least $20 million.” Jd. The problem is that Dawes does not introduce any
evidence, provide any explanation, or cite any comparable cases to suggest that an additional $7
million would provide a more reasonable estimate of his pre-release injury. See Hill, 328 F.3d at
684 (explaining that it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proving “the amount of [his]
damages”). Instead, Dawes simply asserts that the “way in which he was tortured”—in addition
to the “length and frequency with which he was tortured”—entitles him to more. Mot. at 26.
The Court disagrees. Although Syria tortured Dawes in unquestionably horrific ways, the
same has been true in many other cases in which courts have adhered to the per-diem approach.
See, e.g., Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 127, 136 (awarding $10,000 per day of captivity where
plaintiff was “repeatedly beat, shocked, and whipped”; “hung from the ceiling by handcuffs”;
forced into a “drawer with no light, food, water, or space to move”; and “repeatedly denied
medical treatment”); Hekmati, 278 F. Supp. 3d at 151 (awarding $10,000 per day of captivity
where plaintiff was beaten with batons, struck with an electrical taser, whipped, and “handcuffed
in stress positions for hours at a time”). The same may be said of the duration of Dawes’s
imprisonment—his 1,276-day term of captivity is comparable in length to other FSIA cases in
which courts declined to depart from the usual praxis. See, e.g., Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at
136-37 (1,268 days of imprisonment); Hekmati, 278 F. Supp. 3d at 163-64 (1,602 days of
imprisonment); Stansell, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 346 (1,967 days in captivity).
22
All that being so, the Court will award Dawes $12,760,000 in damages for his pre-release
pain and suffering. This award is consistent with this district’s approach to calculating such
damages, see Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 136-37, as well as the overarching goal of ensuring
that “individuals with similar injuries receive similar awards,” Hekmati, 278 F. Supp. 3d at 163(quoting Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 70).
Post-Release Pain and Suffering. Dawes also seeks $20 million for his pain and
suffering post-imprisonment. Unlike awards for pre-release pain and suffering, there is no
simple formula for calculating post-release damages. Instead, courts look to “awards granted to
similarly situated plaintiffs in FSIA lawsuits” as a general baseline for calculating such damages.
Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 137; see Hekmati, 278 F. Supp. 3d at 163 (“The primary
consideration in these cases is to ensure that ‘individuals with similar injuries receive similar
awards.’” (quoting Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 70)). In most cases, courts award lump-sum
damages to compensate plaintiffs for post-release pain and suffering. See, e.g., Moradi, 77 F.
Supp. 3d at 70 (awarding $5 million for post-release damages following 168-day imprisonment
causing severe and long-lasting PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder); Price I, 384 F. Supp. 2d
at 136 ($7 million post-release damages to plaintiff suffering years of ongoing physical
disabilities); Wyatt, 908 F. Supp. 2d at 231-32 ($5 million lump-sum for 21-day imprisonment
and post-release pain and suffering); Massie v. Gov’t of Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
592 F. Supp. 2d 57, 77 (D.D.C. 2008) ($13.4 million lump-sum for post-release damages).
Central to determining the amount of these sums are “the victim’s age at the time of release (the
length of time he will be experiencing pain and suffering) and the extent of the victim’s long-
term injuries (the level of pain and suffering).” Hekmati, 278 F. Supp. 3d at 164.
23
With this backdrop in mind, the Court turns back to the case at hand. Dawes was thirty-
three years old at the time of his release, and his life expectance at that time was 45.1 years. See
United States Life Tables 2016, 68 Nat’! Vital Stats. Reps., no. 4, at 12 (2019). J
Based on these factors, Dawes’s case is materially similar to that of the plaintiff in
Hekmati. There, the plaintiff—who had been imprisoned for 1,602 days in an Iranian prison—
endured deplorable conditions of confinement as well as abuse that was similar in kind and
frequency to that suffered by Dawes. See Hekmati, 278 F. Supp. 3d at 150-54. At the time of
his release, the plaintiff was thirty-two years old and had a life expectancy of over forty-five
years. Id. at 164. After analyzing “awards in other detention cases” and determining that the
plaintiff's post-release “injuries [we]re severe and likely to persist,” the court determined that
$10 million was appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's post-release pain and suffering. Id.Dawes’s post-release pain, suffering, and circumstances are also close in kind to those of
the plaintiff in Abedini. In that case, the plaintiff was detained in an Iranian prison for 1,268
days, during which time he was tortured and forced to live in squalor. See Abedini, 422 F. Supp.
3d at 137. Upon his release, the plaintiff was thirty-five years old and had a life expectancy of
approximately forty-three years. Jd. After comparing the facts of that case to two other cases
(including Hekmati) the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to $9.63 million in post-release
damages. Id. The court calculated this figure by prorating the $10 million award in Hekmati to
account for Abedini’s slightly shorter life expectancy. See id.
Given the similarities between this case, Hekmati, and Abedini, the Court will follow the
lead of those prior decisions and use $10 million as a baseline for calculating Dawes’s damages.
However, in light of the fact that Dawes, like Hekmati, had a life expectancy slightly greater than
forty-five years at the time of his release, the Court sees no need to prorate that sum.
Accordingly, the Court will award Dawes $10 million for his post-release pain and suffering.
In total, the Court awards Dawes $22,760,000 in damages for his pre- and post-release
pain and suffering.
b. Economic Damages
Dawes also seeks damages to compensate him for the wages he could have earned but for
his imprisonment and the injuries stemming therefrom. See Mot. at 29. He contends that those
injuries have “permanently derailed” his career and left him unable to “work as an engineer.” Id.
In FSIA cases, the general rule is that “lost earnings—past and future—are compensable
economic damages.” Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 71. Like damages for pain and suffering,
999
“economic damages must be proven ‘by a reasonable estimate.’” Rezaian v. Islamic Republic of
Tran, 422 F. Supp. 3d 164, 181 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 71). The
difference is that economic damages “are not hard to quantify.” Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 71.
Because of this, a plaintiff must adduce “competent evidence” demonstrating the magnitude of
his economic loss. Jd. Such evidence may include “persuasive expert analysis” that is
“supported by sound factual bases” and reasonable assumptions. Rezaian, 422 F. Supp. 3d at
181; see Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F. Supp. 2d 204, 214 (D.D.C. 2012) (“The report
25
of a forensic economist may provide a reasonable basis for determining the amount of economic
damages.”).
Dawes has produced both evidence and persuasive expert analysis showing that—had he
not been imprisoned and tortured in Syria—it is likely that he would have pursued a long career
in the field of electrical engineering. See Mot., Ex. I, Expert Report of Steve Shedlin (“Shedlin
Report”) at 4-5, ECF No. 19-13. More specifically, a vocational expert concluded that Dawes
would have obtained work either as an electrical engineer or as an electrical engineering
technician. See id. at 4 (explaining that Dawes had received both a bachelor’s and master’s
degree in electrical engineering and detailing his prior work experience as an electrical engineer).
The evidence also suggests that, had Dawes reentered the workforce in early 2013, he would
likely have worked for 34.5 years. Mot., Ex. K, Expert Report of Frank McGuire (“McGuire
Report) at 7, ECF No, 19-15,
| Shedlin Report at 5. Taking all of this into account, a forensic
accountant calculated that Dawes’s lost wages ranged from between approximately $1.8 million
and $3.6 million when reduced to present value.? McGuire Report at 12.
3 This range reflects a degree of uncertainty regarding precisely where, and in what
capacity, Dawes would have worked had he returned to the United States in late 2012 or early
2013. Dawes states that, had he returned at that point in time, he likely would have either moved
to San Raphael, California (where he lives currently) or “perhaps [to] an unspecified area in the
East.” Shedlin Report at 4. His vocational expert assumed that the most likely eastern
destination would have been Ithaca, New York because that is where Dawes attended graduate
school. Id. The forensic accountant’s report takes both of these possibilities into consideration,
and then calculates Dawes’s lost wages had he worked as either an electrical engineer or an
electrical engineering technician in one of those locations. In the end, the report calculates that,
26
After considering in detail the evidence and expert reports, the Court concludes that the
most reasonable estimate of Dawes’s lost wages is $2,241,047—the amount Dawes would have
earned had he worked as an electrical engineering technician in San Raphael. Jd. at 13. The
Court finds it likely that Dawes would have worked in this capacity (rather than as an electrical
engineer) given that Dawes had “minimal work experience” as an electrical engineer when he
left for Syria. Shedlin Report at 4. Moreover, Dawes’s skills would have “been a little bit
dated” because he had been “out of the [electrical engineering] field” for a few years by that
eT aa a rhe aT
Sw See Dawes Decl. at ] 39. As for location, the Court finds it likely that
Dawes would have moved to San Raphael rather than an “unspecified area in the East.” Jd.
Although $2,241,047 represents the amount of money that Dawes would have earned
over the course of his career had he not been taken captive in Syria, that figure overstates the size
of his economic loss. That is because, since his return, Dawes has demonstrated an ability to
obtain work in other capacities. More specifically, he has worked as a delivery driver for Uber
Eats—a job that earns him roughly $1,000 per month. Shedlin Report at 5. The forensic
accountant calculated that, over time, the value of Dawes’s accumulated earnings as a delivery
driver would amount to $311,375. McGuire Report at 9. That being so, the Court will subtract
$311,375 from $2,241,047 to calculate the value of Dawes’s past and future lost earnings. Doing
so shows that Dawes is entitled to $1,929,699 in economic damages, and the Court will award
had Dawes worked in San Raphael, he would have made $3,602,053 as an electrical engineer or
$2,241,047 as an electrical engineering technician over the course of his career. McGuire Report
at 13. Conversely, had he lived in Ithaca, he would have made $2,898,608 as an electrical
engineer or $1,825,605 as an electrical engineering technician over the same period. Jd.
27
that amount. Coupled with the damages for pain and suffering, this results in a total
compensatory award of $24,689,699.
2. Punitive Damages
Finally, Dawes seeks punitive damages in the amount of $87.2 million—a figure that is
twice the amount of his desired compensatory award. “Punitive damages, made available under
the revised FSIA terrorism exception, serve to punish and deter the actions for which they are
awarded.” Oveissi, 879 F. Supp. 2d at 55-56. The purpose of such damages is not to
“compensate the victim,” but rather to “punish outrageous behavior and deter such outrageous
conduct in the future.” Jd. at 56.
Courts analyze four factors to determine whether punitive damages are warranted in an
FSIA case: “the character of the defendant’s act; the nature and extent of harm to the plaintiff
that the defendant caused or intended to cause; the need for deterrence; and the wealth of the
defendant.” Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 141 (quoting Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F.
Supp 1, 32 (D.D.C. 1998)). All four factors support a punitive damages award here. For one,
the character of Syria’s acts is reprehensible and deserving of the most severe condemnation.
See id. (describing acts of torture as “the quintessential embodiment of outrageousness” (quoting
Jenco v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 154 F. Supp. 2d 27, 38 (D.D.C. 2001). [iy
Daas See Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 87 F. Supp. 3d 286,
291 (D.D.C. 2015) (awarding punitive damages where North Korea “caused irreparable
emotional and psychological harm”). The imprisonment and torture by Syria of American
citizens warrants significant deterrence. See Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 141 (finding that “Iran’s
conduct of imprisoning and torturing Iranian-American citizens” clearly merits deterrence);
28
Rezaian, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 183 (“Holding a man hostage and torturing him .. . is outrageous,
deserving of punishment, and surely in need of deterrence.”). And finally, “Syria is a sovereign
that has substantial wealth.” Colvin, 363 F. Supp. 3d at 163.
Determining the proper measure of punitive damages, however, presents a more difficult
question. Over the last two decades, courts have devised at least four different methods of
calculating punitive damages in FSIA cases. See Christie v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. CV
19-1289, 2020 WL 3606273, at *21-22 & n.17 (D.D.C. July 2, 2020) (describing the various
methods in detail). One approach—the so-called Flatow method—calculates punitive damages
by “multiplying the defendant state’s annual expenditures on terrorism . . . by a factor usually
ranging from three to five.” Flanagan v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 87 F. Supp. 3d 93, 122
(D.D.C. 2015). But a number of courts have recently rejected this approach, see Christie, 2020
WL 3606273, at *21 (collecting cases), and Dawes does not advocate its use here. A second
approach is to award plaintiffs a fixed sum of money, often totaling hundreds of millions of
dollars. See, e.g., Colvin, 363 F. Supp. 3d at 164-65 (awarding a flat sum of $300 million).
Dawes does not urge the Court to take that approach, nor does he seek a punitive award worth
hundreds of millions of dollars.
That leaves two other possible methods, both of which calculate punitive damages by
reference to compensatory damages. One approach pegs punitive damages to compensatory
damages by multiplying the latter amount by a “court-determined multiplier,” Abedini, 422 F.
Supp. 3d at 141, that often falls “between one and five,” Christie, 2020 WL 3606273, at *22
(quoting Fritz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 324 F. Supp. 3d 54, 65 (D.D.C. 2018)); see, e.g.,
Hamen v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 407 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10-11 (D.D.C. 2019) (applying this
method). Courts set the multiplier based “on various factors, including, among other things,
29
whether the case involved exceptional circumstances, the perceived deterrence effect, the nexus
between the defendant and the injurious acts, and the evidence plaintiffs presented regarding the
defendant’s funding for terrorist activities.” Hamen, 407 F. Supp. 3d at 10.
The other approach is more straightforward: it entails awarding punitive damages in an
amount equal to compensatory damages. Christie, 2020 WL 3606273, at *22. The Court
believes that this approach represents the preferrable course here. For one thing, a number of
other courts in this district have applied this approach in cases closely resembling this one. See,
e.g., Abedini, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 142 (awarding equal punitive and compensatory damages where
plaintiff was “falsely imprisoned and tortured in Iranian prison”); Hekmati, 278 F. Supp. 3d at
167 (same); Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 73 (same); Khosravi v. Gov't of Islamic Republic of Iran,
No. 16-CV-02066, 2020 WL 4923495, at *7 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 2020) (same). For another,
Dawes has not attempted to explain (1) why the Court should instead use the multiplier approach
or (2) why a multiplier of two is appropriate in the specific circumstances of this case. See Mot.
at 29-30 (seeking “double the amount of compensatory damages” but providing scant
justification or argument in support). The lack of developed argument on this point is glaring,
especially in light of the fact that many cases involving multipliers of two (or higher) often
involve conduct that is even: more egregious than false imprisonment and torture. Compare, e.g.,
Moradi, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 73 (awarding equal compensatory and punitive damages where Iranian
authorities directly detained and tortured, but did not kill, plaintiff), with Fritz, 324 F. Supp. 3d at
65 (applying multiplier of two in a case involving hostage-taking and killing by terrorist
organization the defendant supported). Although there is no question that Syria’s treatment of
Dawes was reprehensible and deserves to be condemned and deterred, Dawes simply has not
30
shown that his case involves the type of exceptional circumstances that would warrant an award
of punitive damages that are double the amount of his compensatory award.
As discussed above, Dawes will receive compensatory damages totaling $24,689,699,
and the Court will award the same amount of punitive damages. In total, therefore, the Court
awards Dawes $49,379,398 in damages.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF Nos. 19, 20) is
GRANTED. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and
contemporaneously issued.
Dated: October 31, 2023 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
31