458 723 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES provision, section 1605A. Section 1605A(c) creates a new federal cause of action for American citizens injured in terrorist attacks sponsored by designated foreign state sponsors of terrorism. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Thus, ‘‘§ 1605A(c) abrogates Cicippio– Puleo TTT by creating a federal right of action against foreign states, for which punitive damages may be awarded.’’ Simon v. Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187, 1190 (D.C.Cir. 2008), rev’d on other grounds, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 2183, 173 L.Ed.2d 1193 (2009). Indeed, section 1605A is ‘‘more advantageous to plaintiffs in several respects.’’ Id. For example, section 1083 of the NDAA amends section 1610 of the FSIA, which governs enforcement of judgments against foreign states. Section 1083 adds a new subsection, section 1610(g)(1), which significantly eases enforcement of judgments entered under section 1605A. See 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g)(1). Moreover, the NDAA includes provisions allowing plaintiffs to refile pending section 1605(a)(7) cases under section 1605A (provided certain conditions are met) and to be able to benefit from all the advantages of a section 1605A action. Section 1083(c)(3) provides in relevant part: Related actions—If an action arising out of an act or incident has been timely commenced under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code TTT any other action arising out of the same act or incident may be brought under section 1605A of title 28, United States 21. Plaintiffs clearly met the two conditions required by section 1083(c)(3)—that the original section 1605(a)(7) action was ‘‘timely commenced’’ and that the section 1605A action be commenced no later than 60 days after the enactment of the NDAA. Pursuant to section 1605(f), actions pursuant to section 1605(a)(7) were timely if filed within ten years after the date of the enactment of section Code, if the action is commenced not later than TTT 60 days after TTT the date of the enactment of this Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1083(c)(3). See, generally, In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litigation, 659 F.Supp.2d 31 (D.D.C.2009) (discussing NDAA’s refiling provisions). The plaintiffs in this action originally brought suit against the defendants under section 1605(a)(7) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Calderon–Cardona v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Civil No. 06–744(RBW) (D.D.C.) (‘‘D.C. Action’’). Section 1605A was enacted during the pendency of the D.C. Action. Accordingly, in order to obtain the advantages provided by Congress under section 1605A, the plaintiffs dismissed the D.C. Action without prejudice (id. at Docket No. 14) and exercised their right under section 1083(c)(3) of the NDAA 21 to file this action in this district under section 1605A. Section 1605A eliminates foreign sovereign immunity in cases ‘‘in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of TTT extrajudicial killing TTT or the provision of material support or resources for such an act if such act or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.’’ 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1). 1605(a)(7). Simon, 529 F.3d at 1194–1196. Section 1605(a)(7) was enacted on April 24, 1996, and the plaintiffs’ D.C. Action was filed on April 24, 2006 (Calderon–Cardona, Civ. No. 06–744 at Docket No. 1) and thus was timely. This action was filed on March 27, 2008, which is less than 60 days after the enactment of the NDAA on January 28, 2008.