United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON RECONSIDERATION
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge.
and Rachelle Fraenkel lost their son, Naftali, when Hamas
terrorists kidnapped and murdered him and two other young
men. The Fraenkels and their remaining six children sued the
Syrian Arab Republic, Islamic Republic of Iran, and Iranian
Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS), as supporters of
Hamas, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28
U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. (2012). The Court found
in the Fraenkels' favor and awarded money damages, and
the Fraenkels now seek reconsideration because the damages
awards “are insufficient to provide them fair
compensation, ” specifically because the amount awarded
is less than the “gold standard” for FSIA awards
as set in Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 466 F.Supp.2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006).
Court will deny the motion for reconsideration, but clarifies
its damages awards.
Court provided an in-depth description of the facts in its
Memorandum Opinion on the motion for default judgment and
will not repeat it here. See Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic
of Iran, No. 15-1080, 2017 WL 1214353 (D.D.C. March 31,
2017). The Fraenkels sued Iran, Syria, and MOIS on July 9,
2015. See Compl. [Dkt. 1]. The Court held a two-day
hearing on the Fraenkels' Motion for Default Judgment on
December 6-7, 2016 and Plaintiffs submitted proposed findings
of fact and law. See Proposed Findings [Dkt. 36]. On
March 31, 2017, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and
Order, finding in favor of the Fraenkels and awarding the
Pain and Suffering to the Estate of Naftali Fraenkel - $1,
Solatium to U.S. Citizen Plaintiffs - $3, 100, 000
Solatium to Abraham Fraenkel - $1, 000, 000
Punitive Damages to the Estate of Naftali Fraenkel - $50,
Order [Dkt. 40].
Fraenkels moved to reopen the case and schedule a conference
on the same day as the Court's Final Order, see
Mot. for Conference [Dkt. 41], which the Court denied.
4/3/2017 Minute Order. The Fraenkels filed the instant motion
on April 27, 2017 asking the Court to:
1. Amend and make new findings of fact under Rule 52(b);
2. Amend or alter the judgment under Rule 59(e);
3. Schedule a new trial under Rule 59; and/or
4. Reconsider the amount and allocation of damages awarded.
Amend [Dkt. 44]. Defendants filed no opposition. The ...