## Facts

- On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber drove an explosive-laden truck into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemembers and injuring others.
- Plaintiffs were injured servicemembers and family members (including wrongful-death beneficiaries) of those killed or injured in the bombing.
- Defendants were the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS).
- Plaintiffs alleged Iran and MOIS sponsored, financed, trained, and directed Hezbollah, and that this material support enabled and caused the bombing.
- The court relied in part on judicial notice of detailed factual findings from prior litigation arising out of the same attack regarding Hezbollah’s role and Iran’s sponsorship.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over Iran and MOIS under the FSIA terrorism exception, including whether 28 U.S.C. § 1605A applied retroactively under its transition provisions.
2. Whether Iran and MOIS were liable under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) for deaths and injuries caused by the Beirut barracks bombing through their provision of material support to Hezbollah.
3. What compensatory and punitive damages were available and appropriate in a default-judgment FSIA terrorism action.

## Decision

- The court entered default judgment against Iran and MOIS after they failed to appear.
- The court held § 1605A and its federal cause of action applied to the plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiffs under the statute’s transition provisions.
- The court found it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the terrorism exception removed sovereign immunity, and personal jurisdiction because service was properly made and immunity was absent.
- The court held Iran and MOIS liable under § 1605A(c) for wrongful death, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on their material support to Hezbollah that proximately caused the attack.
- The court awarded compensatory damages (including economic loss, pain and suffering, and solatium) and punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FSIA, a foreign state is subject to suit when a statutory exception to immunity applies; subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) where immunity is absent.
- Personal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b) exists where the foreign state is not immune and service is effected in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608.
- Section 1605A may apply to certain pending or related terrorism actions through statutory transition provisions, permitting use of § 1605A(c)’s federal cause of action.
- A foreign state and its agencies may be liable under § 1605A(c) for personal injury or death caused by extrajudicial killing or the provision of material support for such acts.
- In FSIA default proceedings, courts must require satisfactory proof of liability and damages and may take judicial notice of prior findings in closely related terrorism cases.
- Under § 1605A(c), punitive damages are available against state sponsors of terrorism, and compensatory awards may include economic loss, pain and suffering for direct victims, and solatium for qualifying relatives.

## Conclusion

The court applied the FSIA terrorism framework to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, held that § 1605A supplied jurisdiction and a federal cause of action on the facts shown, found Iran and MOIS liable based on support to Hezbollah, and entered default judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to injured servicemembers and their family members.


Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010)