60
356 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES
terrorism’’ by a factor between three and
five. See Baker, 775 F.Supp.2d at 85 (citing
Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 88–90; Estate of
Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 659
F.Supp.2d 20, 30–31; Acosta, 574
F.Supp.2d at 31); Beer v. Islamic Republic
of Iran, 789 F.Supp.2d 14, 26 (D.D.C.
2011). This approach, which may result in
awards in the billions of dollars, has been
used in the case of exceptionally deadly
attacks, such as the 1983 bombing of the
Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed
241 American military servicemen. See
Baker, 775 F.Supp.2d at 85. A second approach bases punitive damages on ‘‘the
ratio of punitive to compensatory damages
set forth in earlier cases,’’ if similar conduct has been previously litigated. See
Spencer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 71
F.Supp.3d 23, 31 (D.D.C. 2014); Goldberg–
Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 938
F.Supp.2d 1, 11–12 (D.D.C. 2013). A third
approach awards a fixed amount of $ 150,000,000 per affected family. See Wyatt v.
Syrian Arab Republic, 908 F.Supp.2d 216,
233 (D.D.C. 2012) (awarding $ 300,000,000
in total to two victims and their families);
Baker, 775 F.Supp.2d at 86 (awarding
$ 150,000,000 each to families of three deceased victims); Gates, 580 F.Supp.2d at 75
(awarding $ 150,000,000 each to the estates of two victims).
In this case, although egregious, Otto’s
detention in North Korea is not on the
scale of an exceptionally deadly attack
against many Americans, making the first
method, which might result in an award in
the billions of dollars, as the plaintiffs request, see Pls.’ Mot. at 44, out-of-line with
analogous circumstances. In addition, the
first method requires knowing how much
North Korea spends on terrorist activities,
and that information is not available. See
Kim, 87 F.Supp.3d at 291 (explaining that
‘‘[n]o such information for North Korea is
readily accessible, TTT if it is accessible at
all’’). The second method, likewise, is not
appropriate since Otto’s case is unique.
[41] The third approach, thus, is the
most appropriate, but recognizing that
North Korea has committed acts that are
‘‘awful and worthy of the gravest condemnation,’’ id. (quoting Roth, 78 F.Supp.3d at
405), and that North Korea is ‘‘keenly
aware’’ of the ‘‘political environment’’ in
the United States, including judgments issued by United States courts, H’rg Tr.
(Rough) at 131–32 (Expert Prof. SungYoon Lee), a larger award is appropriate
to punish and deter North Korea. Accordingly, punitive damages are awarded to
each of the three plaintiffs in the amount
of $ 150 million, for a total of $ 450 million
in punitive damages. See Kim, 87
F.Supp.3d at 291 (awarding $ 300 million
in punitive damages in 2015, based on
North Korea’s ‘‘presumed torture’’ of a
missionary in North Korea, which was insufficient to deter North Korea in 2016 in
Otto’s case).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, the
plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is
granted. North Korea is liable for the torture, hostage taking, and extrajudicial killing of Otto Warmbier, and the injuries to
his mother and father, Fred and Cindy
Warmbier. The plaintiffs are awarded
monetary damages in the following
amounts: Otto Warmbier’s estate is entitled to $ 6,038,308 in economic losses,
$ 96,375.80 in medical expenses, $ 15,000,000 in pain and suffering, and $ 150,000,000 in punitive damages. Fred and Cindy
Warmbier are each entitled to $ 15,000,000
in solatium damages and a total of $ 300,000,000 in punitive damages. Thus, the total damage award is $ 501,134,683.80.
,