Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION LAMBERTH, District Judge. BACKGROUND These actions arise from the June 25, 1996 bombing at Khobar Towers, a residence on a United States military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The plaintiffs in this consolidated action are the family members and estates of 17 of the 19 servicemen killed in the attack. Plaintiffs allege that the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”), the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (“IRGC” or “the Pasdaran”), and “John Does 1-99” are liable for damages from the attack because they provided material support and assistance to Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that orchestrated and carried out the bombing. Plaintiffs have relied upon causes of action founded upon provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). PROCEDURAL HISTORY In their second amended complaints, plaintiffs named as defendants (1) the Islamic Republic of Iran; (2) the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”); (3) the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC” or “the Pasdaran”); (4) and “John Does l-99[.]” Second Amended Complaints, ¶ 1; see also id., ¶¶ 24, 25, 27, 29. Plaintiffs • sought damages for wrongful death (Count I); survival action (Count II); “economic damages” (Count III); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV); for plaintiffs Ibis S. Haun, Marie R. Campbell, ShyrI L. Johnson, Katie L. Marthaler and Dawn Woody, loss of consortium (Count V); solatium (Count VI); and “punitive damages” (Count VII). Plaintiffs requested judgment in their favor against all of the defendants. In addition, the plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 00-2329 sought compensatory damages against all defendants in the amount of $890,000,000, “plus economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial for each of Decedents’ Estates”; punitive damages against defendants MOIS, the IRGC and John Does 1-99 in the amount of $500,000,000; and reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 01-2104 sought compensatory damages against all defendants in the amount of $3,660,000,000 “plus economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial for each of Decedents’ Estates”; punitive damages against defendants MOIS, the IRGC and John Does 1-99 in the amount of $500,000,000; and reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. On February 1, 2002, the court (Jackson, J.) consolidated the two civil actions, and in Civil Action No. 00-2329, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default as to defendants Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC. February 1, 2002 Order (Docket No. 9, Civil Action No. 00-2329) at 1. On February 6, 2002, the Clerk entered a default in Civil Action No. GO-2329 against defendants Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC. Default (Docket No. 10, Civil Action No. 00-2329). On July 30, 2002, both actions were referred to Magistrate Judge Robinson for all purposes. (July 30, 2002 Order (Docket No. 11) at 1.) On October 4, 2002, Magistrate Judge Robinson granted plaintiffs’ motion in Civil Action No. 01-2104 for entry of default as to defendants Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC. (October 4, 2002 Order (Docket No. 11, Civil Action No. 01-2104) at 1.) On October 8, 2002, the Clerk entered a default in Civil Action No. 01-2104 against defendants Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC. Default (Docket No. 12, Civil Action No. 01-2104) at 1. On March 14, 2003, plaintiffs moved for a continuance of the hearing on liability and damages. Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that counsel “has learned that certain immediate family members of the soldiers killed in the Khobar Towers terrorist attack' — family members who have cognizable claims under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (‘FSIA’) — are not currently named as parties in these consolidated actions.” (Motion for Continuance of Trial Date and Request for Scheduling Conference (Docket No. 16) at 2.) Counsel further represented that the firm “is in the process of identifying all such family members and anticipates filing amended complaints within the next several weeks.” Id. Magistrate Judge Robinson granted plaintiffs’ motion, and, in accordance with the request of plaintiffs’ counsel, “tentatively” scheduled the hearing for “the period of December 1, 2003 to December 18, 2003[.]” (March 17, 2003 Order (Docket No. 17) at 1.) Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaints on May 6, 2003. Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motions to vacate their consent to proceed before a magistrate judge for all purposes and to clarify the purpose of the referral to a magistrate judge, the court re-referred the consolidated civil actions to Magistrate Judge Robinson “to hear and determine pretrial matters as permitted thereby, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), to conduct hearings, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for the disposition by the Court of any motion for judgment by default upon the evidence submitted in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e).” (Docket No. [20] at 1-2.) The Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for clarification of the referral. (August 22, 2003 Order (Docket No. 25) at 1.) On September 3, 2003, Magistrate Judge Robinson scheduled the hearing on liability and damages for December 1 through December 18, 2003. (September 3, 2003 Order (Docket No. 26) at 1.) Plaintiffs filed their pretrial statement on October 31, 2003 ((Docket No. 30).) In accordance with Magistrate Judge Robinson’s Final Pretrial Order (Docket No. 32), plaintiffs filed a memorandum regarding issues relevant to liability. See Supplemental Bench Memorandum on Liability Issues (“Memorandum on Liability”) (Docket No. 33). In the memorandum, plaintiffs stated that they “do not expect to identify [Defendants] John Does 1-99 before the commencement of the trial[,]” and that “[accordingly, Plaintiffs will not seek a finding of liability against the co-conspirators John Does 1-99, who were named as defendants when the complaints in this consolidated action were filed.” (Memorandum on Liability at 9.) On November 19, 2003, plaintiffs moved for entry of default against the Islamic Republic of Iran, MOIS and the IRGC. (Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default (Docket No. 38) at 1.) The Court granted the motion. November 26, 2003 Order. (Docket No. 39, Civil Action No. 00-2329; Docket No. 32, Civil Action No. 01-2104.) Plaintiffs examined witnesses and offered other evidence with respect to liability and damages on December 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19, 2003. On December 19, 2003, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendants “John Does 1-99,” and Magistrate Judge Robinson granted the motion. (December 19, 2003 Tr. (Docket No. 128) at 69-70.) The magistrate judge recessed the hearing until February 5, 2004, the earliest date that plaintiffs’ counsel, plaintiffs’ witnesses and the court were be available to continue. Magistrate Judge Robinson received further evidence on February 5, 6, 9 and 10, 2004. During the recess in the evidentiary hearing a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit decided Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C.Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs asked that the hearing resume on February 5, 2004 as scheduled. On February 6, 2004, when the schedule for the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing and for closing argument was addressed by Magistrate Judge Robinson, counsel for plaintiffs asked that counsel’s closing argument be deferred until counsel filed Plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Magistrate Judge Robinson ordered that plaintiffs file their proposed findings and conclusions on April 1, 2004, the date proposed by plaintiffs’ counsel. Magistrate Judge Robinson scheduled plaintiffs’ closing argument for April 15, 2004, the date proposed by Plaim tiffs’ counsel. On April 9, -2004, Magistrate Judge Robinson postponed the April 15 closing argument, intending to order supplemental briefing of issues relevant to the liability of the remaining defendants. In light of the D.C. Circuit’s opinions in Cicippio-Puleo and Acree v. Republic of Iraq, plaintiffs moved to modify the magistrate judge’s Final Pretrial Order, or in the alternative to file third amended complaints so as to incorporate claims based in state law. On August 4, 2004, Magistrate Judge Robinson denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration; granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file third amended complaints; and ordered that plaintiffs file the third amended complaints by August 9, 2004. (Aug. 4, 2004 Order (Docket No. 103) at 2-3.) Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaints on August 4, 2004. Plaintiffs named as defendants in the third amended complaints the Islamic Republic of Iran, the “Iranian Ministry of Information and Security!]]” and the “Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps[.]” Plaintiffs again alleged that “[t]he Hizbollah terrorist organization is a creation and agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran”; that “[i]n 1995, Hizbollah began plotting a terrorist attack against United States interests in Saudi Arabia”; and that “[Hizbollah] ultimately detonated a bomb outside Khobar Towers.” (Third Amended Complaints at 2.) Plaintiffs allege that “[u]nder United States law, the Islamic Republic of Iran— which funds, trains, and directs Hizbollah through the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps — is responsible for this terrorist attack and for the murder of [Plaintiffs’ decedents].” Id FINDINGS OF FACT 1.In June 1996, Master Sergeant Michael Heiser, Captain Leland Timothy Haun, Airman First-Class Justin R. Wood, Senior Airman Earl F. Cartrette, Jr., Airman First-Class Brian McVeigh, Sergeant Millard D. Campbell, Staff-Sergeant Kevin J. Johnson, Airman First-Class Joseph E. Rimkus, Airman First-Class Brent E. Marthaler, Technical Sergeant Tranh (“Gus”) Nguyen, Airman First-Class Joshua E. Woody, Airman First-Class Peter J. Morgera, Master Sergeant Kendall Kitson, Jr., Captain Christopher Adams, Airman First-Class Christopher Lester, Senior Airman Jeremy A. Taylor, and Technical Sergeant Patrick P. Fennig were citizens of the United States and members of the United States Air Force. They were stationed in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and resided in the Khobar Towers. 2. The United States military presence in Saudi Arabia was with the consent of that host country. Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2006 WL 2827372, *2 (D.D.C. Sept.29, 2006) (Lamberth, J.). It was part of a coalition of forces, primarily from the United States, Great Britain, and France, that was charged with monitoring Iraq’s compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions enforcing the cease-fire that had brought an end to the 1991 “Desert Storm” ejection of Iraqi occupying forces from Kuwait. Id 3. The deployment of U.S. troops to the region was considered a peacetime deployment within a friendly host country. Id 4. The seventeen decedents represented in this action were engaged in routine peace time operations while stationed in Saudi Arabia, and were charged with enforcing the “no fly zone” in southern Iraq. 5. Defendant Iran “is a foreign state and has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism pursuant to section 69(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C.A. § 2405(j)) continuously since January 19, 1984.” Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F.Supp. 1, 11, (D.D.C.1998) (Lamberth, J.). 6. Defendant the IRGC is a non-traditional instrumentality of Iran. It is the military arm of a kind of shadow government answering directly to the Ayatollah and the mullahs who hold power in Iran. It is similar to the Nazi party’s SA organization prior to World War II. The IRGC actively supports terrorism as a means of protecting the Islamic revolution that brought the Ayatollah to power in Iran in 1979. It has its own separate funding sources, derived from , confiscation of the assets of the former Shah of Iran in 1979, when the Shah was deposed. Blais, 459 F.Supp.2d at 46-47. 7. The Khobar Towers was a residential complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which housed the coalition forces charged with monitoring compliance with U.N. security council resolutions. Id. at 47-48. The Attack on the Khobar Towers 8. At approximately 10 minutes before 10 pm on June 25, 1996, a large gasoline tanker truck pulled up alongside the perimeter wall of the Khobar Towers complex. The driver jumped out, ran into a waiting car that had pulled up near the truck, and sped off. Id. 9. Although security guards near the top of Building 131 started to give warnings about the unusual vehicle location, the truck exploded with great force within about 15 minutes. The investigation determined that the force of the explosion was the equivalent of 20,000 pounds of TNT. The Defense Department said that it was the largest non-nuclear explosion ever up to that time. Id. 10. The explosion sheared off the face of Building 131, where Paul Blais and his crewmates were housed, and reduced most of it to rubble. Nineteen United States Air Force personnel were killed in the explosion, and hundreds of others were injured. Id. Iranian Support and Sponsorship of the Attack 11. The attack was carried out by individuals recruited principally by a senior official of the IRGC, Brigadier General Ahmed Sharifi. Sharifi, who was the operational commander, planned the operation and recruited individuals for the operation at the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria. He provided the passports, the paperwork, and the funds for the individuals who carried out the attack. Id. 12. The truck bomb was assembled at a terrorist base in the Bekaa Valley which was jointly operated by the IRGC and by the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. The individuals recruited to carry out the bombing referred to themselves as “Saudi Hezbollah,” and they drove the truck bomb from its assembly point in the Bekaa Valley to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Id. 13. The terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers was approved by Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme leader of Iran at the time. It was also approved and supported by the Iranian Minister of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”) at the time, Ali Fallahian, who was involved in providing intelligence security support for the operation. Fallahian’s representative in Damascus, a man named Nurani, also provided support for the operation. Id. 14. Under Louis Freeh, the FBI conducted a massive and thorough investigation of the attack, using over 250 agents. Id. 15. Based on that investigation, an Alexandria, Virginia, grand jury returned an indictment on June 21, 2001, against 13 identified members of the pro-Iran Saudi Hezballah organization. The indictment’s description of the plot to bomb the Khobar Towers complex frequently refers to direction and assistance from Iranian government officials. Id. 16. In addition, as a result of this investigation, the FBI also obtained a great deal of information linking the defendants to the bombing from interviews with six admitted members of the Saudi Hezbollah organization, who were arrested by the Saudis shortly after the bombing. Id. at 11-30. These six individuals admitted to the FBI their complicity in the attack on the Khobar Towers, and admitted that senior officials in the Iranian government provided them with funding, planning, training, sponsorship, and travel necessary to carry out the attack on the Khobar Towers. (Exh. 7 at 11, 13-14, 27; see also Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 24-30.) The six individuals also indicated that the selection of the target and the authorization to proceed was done collectively by Iran, MOIS, and IRGC, though the actual preparation and carrying out of the attack was done by the IRGC. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 25.) 17. According to Director Freeh, the FBI obtained specific information from the six about how each was recruited and trained by the Iranian government in Iran and Lebanon, and how weapons were smuggled into Saudi Arabia from Iran through Syria and Jordan. One individual described in detail a meeting about the attack at which senior Iranian officials, including members of the MOIS and IRGC, were present. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 23.) Several stated that IRGC directed, assisted, and oversaw the surveillance of the Khobar Towers site, and that these surveillance reports were sent to IRGC officials for their review. Another told the FBI that IRGC gave the six individuals a large amount of money for the specific purpose of planning and executing the Khobar Towers bombing. 18. Louis Freeh has publicly and unequivocally stated his firm conclusion, based on evidence gathered by the FBI during their five-year investigation, that Iran was responsible for planning and supporting the Khobar Towers attack. Blais at 48-49. 19. Dale Watson was formerly the deputy counterterrorism chief of the FBI in 1996, and subsequently became the section chief for all international terrorism in 1997. Mr. Watson was responsible for day to day oversight of the FBI investigation of the Khobar Towers attack. Mr. Watson has given sworn testimony that information uncovered in the investigation, “clearly pointed to the fact that there was Iran MOIS and IRGC involvement in the bombing.” Id. 20. Dr. Patrick Clawson testified as an expert in three areas: (1) the government of Iran; (2) Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism; and (3) the Iranian economy. Dr. Clawson’s expert opinion regarding the perpetrators of the Khobar Towers bombing is based on his involvement on a Commission investigating the bombing, his top-secret security clearance, his discussions with Saudi officials, as well as his academic research on the subject. Exh. 9 at 62-63. 21. Dr. Clawson testified that the government of Iran formed the Saudi Hezbollah organization. Id. at 56. He testified that the IRGC was responsible for providing military training to Hezbollah terrorists as to how to carry out a terrorist attack. Id. at 28. He also testified as to the defendants’ state-sponsorship of terrorism, noting that at the time of the Khobar Towers bombing, Iran spent an estimated amount of between $50 million and $150 million on terrorist activities. Exh. 10 at 46. 22. In light of all these facts, Dr. Claw-son stated conclusively his opinion that the government of Iran, MOIS, and IRGC were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, and that Saudi Hezbollah carried out the attack under their direction. Exh. 9 at 67-68. 23. Dr. Clawson’s expert opinion is supported by Dr. Bruce Tefft, whose expert opinion this Court adopted in Blais. Dr. Tefft was one of the founding members of the CIA’s counterterrorism bureau in 1985. He served in the CIA until 1995, and has continued to work as a consultant on terrorism since that time, including work as an unofficial adviser to the New York Police Department’s counterterrorism and intelligence divisions. He retains a top-secret security clearance in connection with his work. He has been qualified as an expert witness in numerous other cases involving Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. He was qualified as an expert witness on terrorism in this case. Id. 24. Dr. Tefft expressed the opinion that defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp were responsible for planning and supporting the attack on the Khobar Towers, including providing operational and financial support. He stated that there was “no question about it. It wouldn’t have happened without Iranian support.” Id. 25. Dr. Tefft based his conclusion on publicly available sources that were not inconsistent with classified information known to him from his time at the CIA and from his security clearances since that time. He relied on the public sources described above, as well as several others, which he described as authoritative and reliable, including congressional testimony by Matthew Levitt, senior fellow and director of the Washington Institute’s Terrorism Studies Program, and articles published by the Federation of American Scientists as well as the Free Muslims Coalition. Id. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Jurisdiction In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides the sole basis for asserting jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns. Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 434-34, 109 S.Ct. 683,102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989). Normally, a party may not bring an action for money damages in U.S. courts against a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1604. The “state-sponsored terrorism” exception, however, removes a foreign state’s immunity to suits for money damages brought in U.S. courts where plaintiffs are seeking damages against the foreign state for personal injury or death caused by “an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources (as defined in section 2339A of title 18) for such an act if such act or provision of material support is engaged 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. § 1605(a)(7). In order to subject a foreign sovereign to suit under section 1605(a)(7), plaintiffs must show that: (1) the foreign sovereign was designated by the State Department as a “state sponsor of terrorism”; (2) the victim or plaintiff was a U.S. national at the time the acts took place; and (3) the foreign sovereign engaged in conduct that falls within the ambit of the statute. Prevatt v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 421 F.Supp.2d 152, 158 (D.D.C. Mar.28, 2006). Each of the requirements is met in this case. First, defendant Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism continuously since January 19, 1984, and was so designated at the time of the attack. See 31 C.F.R. § 596.201 (2001); Flatow, 999 F.Supp. at 11, ¶ 19. Second, the plaintiffs have described themselves as “the Estates and family members” of 17 of the 19 servicemen who were killed on June 25, 1996, after “Hizbollah terrorists detonated a 5,000 pound truck bomb outside of Khobar Towers, a United States military complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.” Second Amended Complaint, at 3. Both the plaintiffs and the victims to which they are related were United States nationals at the time the bombing occurred. Finally, defendant Iran’s support of an entity that ' committed an extrajudicial killing squarely falls within the ambit of the statute. Defendants MOIS and the IRGC are considered to be a division of state of Iran, and thus the same determinations apply to their conduct. Roeder, 333 F.3d at 234; see also Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F.Supp.2d 105, 116 (D.D.C.2005) (Bates, J.) (analogizing the IRGC to the MOIS for purposes of liability, and concluding that both must be treated as the state of Iran itself). Personal jurisdiction exists over a non-immune sovereign so long as service of process has been made under section 1608 of the FSIA. See Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 271 F.Supp.2d 286, 298 (D.D.C.2003) (Lamberth, J.). In this case, service of process has been made. Accordingly, this Court has in personam jurisdiction over defendants Iran, MOIS, and IRGC. II. Legal Standard for FSIA Default Judgment Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, “[n]o judgement by default shall be entered by a court of the United States or of a state against a foreign state ... unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e); Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228, 232-33 (D.C.Cir.2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 915, 124 S.Ct. 2836, 159 L.Ed.2d 287 (2004). In default judgment cases, plaintiffs may present evidence in the form of affidavits. Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 424 F.Supp.2d 74, 82 (D.D.C. Mar.29, 2006) (quoting Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F.Supp.2d 258, 268 (D.D.C.2003)). Upon evaluation, the court may accept plaintiffs’ uncontroverted evidence as trae. Campuzano, 281 F.Supp.2d at 268. This Court accepts the uncontested evidence and testimony submitted by plaintiffs as true in light of the fact that the defendants in this action have not objected to it or even appeared in this action to contest it. III. Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law A. Standard of Review of a Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation Under the Federal Magistrate’s Act, “a judge may ... designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Once the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation are submitted to the court and copies have been served on the parties, the parties may serve and file within ten days from receipt of service written objections to any proposed finding or recommendations made within the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In reviewing the objections made to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court judge shall make a de novo review of the portions of the report and recommendation objected to by the parties. Id. Upon review, “[a] judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 585, 123 S.Ct. 1696, 155 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003) (noting that a district court is “free to do as it sees fit with [a] magistrate judge’s recommendations” made under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). The district court “must not be a rubber stamp” of the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Reese v. Meritor Automotive, Inc., 113 F.Supp.2d 822, 824 (W.D.N.C.2000) (quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.2 (2006)). B. Magistrate Judge Robinson’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Robinson recommended that plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment be denied on the basis that plaintiffs had not presented evidence satisfactory to the Court of defendants’ liability. (Rep. and Reco. [129] 30.) The magistrate judge proposed that “Plaintiffs failed to establish a nexus between the June 25, 1996 bombing and any action or decision of any of the Defendants in these consolidated actions.” Id. As a result, Magistrate Judge Robinson x'ecommended that this Court find that plaintiffs failed to “[establish] [their] claim or right to relief by evidence that is satisfactory to the Court[J” Id. (quoting Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 425 F.Supp.2d 56, 60 (D.D.C.2006)) (internal citation omitted). The magistrate judge also discussed generally, but made no specific findings or recommendations concerning, two additional issues, namely: (1) whether plaintiffs, as members of the United States Air Force operating under peacetime rules of engagement, may qualify for recovery under the FSIA; and (2) whether an apparent conflict of interest existed with respect to plaintiffs’ representation by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP. (Rep. and Reco. [129] 15-17, 25-26.) Plaintiffs objected to the magistrate judge’s finding as to the insufficiency of the evidence, as well as to other portions of the report and recommendation. (See PL’s Obj. to Report and Recommendation [130] 4-5.) In addition to the objection as to the sufficiency of their evidence, plaintiffs objected to: (1) whether Magistrate Judge Robinson had jurisdiction to preside over an evidentiary hearing or to make a report and recommendation regarding default judgment; (2) the magistrate judge’s discussion of whether plaintiffs, as members of the United States Air Force, could recover as noncombatants under peacetime rules of engagement at the time of their deaths; and (3) her discussion of an apparent conflict of interest with respect to plaintiffs’ counsel. (Pl.’s Obj. to Report and Recommendation [130] 5.) Having reviewed de novo the objected-to portions of Magistrate Judge Robinson’s report and recommendation to this Court, and for the reasons set forth in this opinion, this Court makes the following determinations. First, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Robinson had proper jurisdiction to hear evidence and render a report and recommendation in this matter. Second, the Court finds that plaintiffs may properly recover under the FSIA as noncombatants under peacetime rules of engagement. Third, this Court finds that no conflict of interest presently exists arising out of plaintiffs’ representation by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP. Finally, the Court finds that plaintiffs have provided evidence satisfactory to this Court to establish their claim or right to relief. In light of the foregoing findings, judgment shall be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. IV. Analysis and Revieio of Objections to Magistrate Judge Robinson’s Report and Recommendation A. Plaintiff’s Objection that Magistrate Judge Robinson Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Evidence and Render an Opinion in this Matter Plaintiffs objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety on the grounds that she lacked jurisdiction to conduct an evidentiary hearing or issue a recommendation on plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against the defendants. At the heart of their objections is the notion that appointment of a magistrate judge in lieu of an Article III Judge is unauthorized by the Magistrates Act and might run afoul of the parties’ due process and Article III rights under the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs’ objection is unfounded. As noted above, such an appointment is clearly authorized by the Magistrates Act. The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) clearly states that a district court “may ... designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Additionally, the Supreme Court held that this statute “strikes the proper balance between the demands of due process and the constraints of Article III.” Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 683-84, 100 S.Ct. 2406. Delegation under this provision does not run afoul of Article III “so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court.” Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 683, 100 S.Ct. 2406. Moreover, the parties’ due process rights are protected by the fact that “the district court judge alone acts as the ultimate decisionmaker, [and] the statute grants the judge the broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate’s proposed findings.” Id. at 680, 100 S.Ct. 2406. Here, Magistrate Judge Robinson heard evidence from the parties, and rendered a report and recommendation to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and this Court alone is responsible for rendering the ultimate decision as to the merits of this case. Accordingly, this Court finds that neither of the parties’ due process or Article III rights were violated by appointing Magistrate Judge Robinson to conduct an evidentiary hearing. This Court finds that Magistrate Judge Robinson had proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) to conduct an evidentiary hearing and submit a report and recommendation thereon. B. Plaintiffs’ Ability to Recover Under State-Sponsored Terrorism Exception to the FSIA Magistrate Judge Robinson raised in her report and recommendation the issue of whether plaintiffs, as relatives of active servicemen on duty at the time of their deaths, were able to recover for damages arising from those servicemen’s deaths. Plaintiffs argued that they are not excluded under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the FSIA from recovering. Previously, this Court has awarded damages to United States service members who were injured or killed as a result of state-sponsored terrorist attacks and their families. In Peterson, this Court held that a service member and his or her family may recover under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the FSIA only if the service member was a noncombatant not engaged in military hostilities. There, the Court established a two-prong test to determine whether a military service member was a non-combatant. Under this test, a service member is deemed a non-combatant if he or she was: (1) engaged in a peacekeeping mission; and (2) operating under peacetime rules of engagement. Peterson, 264 F.Supp.2d at 60. Here, plaintiffs have conclusively demonstrated that the servicemen who died at the Khobar Towers satisfy the two-prong test under Peterson. Colonel Douglas Cochran testified on December 2, 2003, that the service members who died at the Khobar Towers were deployed as a part of a peacekeeping mission sanctioned by United Nations Resolutions. (Dec. 12, 2003 Tr. at 12.) He also stated that the decedents were operating under standing rules of engagement, under which the decedents did not have the right to participate directly in hostilities. Id. at 10-12, 15. The decedents were not allowed to attack unless attacked or in peril of immediate attack resulting in death or serious bodily harm. Id. at 15. Moreover, as noted by the Reports of Casualty and personnel records for each of the decedents in this case, the cause of the service members’ deaths was indisputably the result of a terrorist bombing, and not a result of combat hostilities. (Dec. 1, 2003 Tr. at 29; see also Dec. 2, 2003 Tr. at 35-38.) In light of the above-mentioned evidence, this Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the two-prong test under Peterson. Therefore, this Court finds that plaintiffs are not excluded from recovering under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the FSIA. C. Apparent Conflict of Interest Next, in her discussion of the procedural history of the case, the magistrate judge discussed an apparent conflict of interest resulting from plaintiffs’ representation in this matter by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP (the “Firm”), and the Firm’s representation of the Government of Sudan (“Sudan”), the defendant in the separate matter of Owens v. Republic of Sudan (Civ. Action No. 01-2244(JDB)). The magistrate judge was concerned that the Firm’s representation in the Owens matter created a conflict of interest because defendants Iran, IRGC, and MOIS were co-defendants with Sudan in Owens, and because the Firm’s representation of Sudan would cause the Firm to make an argument in Owens that was directly contrary to the arguments it made on behalf of plaintiffs in this matter. Plaintiffs raise an objection and allege that no conflict of interest (apparent or otherwise) exists in this matter. Under District of Columbia. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7, unless a lawyer obtains informed consent from both clients, a lawyer shall not represent one client in a matter if the position taken by that client is adverse to the position taken by another client. D.C. Rule of Prof. Conduct 1.7. As the District of Columbia Bar Legal Ethics Committee has noted, “the lawyer may not, without informed consent of all parties, accept simultaneous representation of both clients where such representation creates a substantial risk that representation of one client will adversely effect the representation of the other.” District of Columbia Bar Legal Ethics Committee Formal Op. 265 (1996). Upon a review of the pleadings and evidence in this matter, the Court finds that no conflict of interest exists. First, the Firm’s prior representation in another matter of a codefendant to the defendants in this matter does not create a conflict of interest. Though the defendants in this matter were co-defendants along with Sudan in the Owens matter, the Firm has stated that it never represented Iran, MOIS, or IRGC in the Owens matter or any other matter. (Pl.’s Resp. to Apr. 16, 2004 Court Order 1.) Moreover, the Firm has withdrawn completely from representing Sudan in Owens as Rule 1.7 states it must in such situations. Next, the Court is satisfied that no apparent conflict exists that would preclude the Firm from continuing to represent plaintiffs’ interests in this matter. As the Firm’s pleadings to the magistrate judge plainly show, upon discovering that an apparent conflict had arisen, the Firm took immediate steps to eliminate it. The Co-Chair of the Firm’s Professional Responsibility function instructed the partners representing the Government of Sudan that they were not to continue to represent Sudan in light of the fact that such representation would force the Firm to argue conflicting positions in both matters. Unbeknownst to the heads of the Firm, however, the specific attorneys responsible for representing Sudan disregarded the partners’ instruction, and continued to represent Sudan, entering filings on their behalf. Still, when the Firm’s management discovered the actions of events, it promptly sought withdrawal as counsel for Sudan in the Owens matter, notified the D.C. Bar Counsel and this Court’s Committee on Grievances of the sequence of events, and wrote off fees and expenses otherwise due from Sudan as a former client. In addition, the attorneys who disregarded the Firm’s instructions to cease representation have left the Firm. Finally, this Court is persuaded that no conflict of interest exists by considering the manner in which the magistrate judge ultimately dealt with the issue. After the Firm issued its responses on the conflict issue to Magistrate Judge Robinson’s Orders dated April 13 and April 16, 2004, the magistrate judge proceeded forth with the remaining portions of the trial, and never issued a ruling on whether a conflict existed as a result of the Firm’s representation of plaintiffs in this matter, and their representation of Sudan in Owens. Moreover, in her report and recommendation to this Court, the magistrate judge included the “apparent conflict of interest” issue solely within her discussion of the case’s procedural history. She neither issued nor recommended within her report and recommendation any finding that a conflict existed. Surely, were the magistrate judge of the opinion that a conflict of interest did exist, she would have taken more substantive steps to ensure that such a representation would not continue. In light of these facts, the Court finds that no. conflict of interest exists arising from the Firm’s representation of plaintiffs in this matter and Sudan in the Owens case. D. Sufficiency of Liability Evidence Provided by Plaintiffs Magistrate Judge Robinson recommended that plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment be denied on the grounds that she found plaintiffs had not submitted evidence satisfactory to the Court of defendants’ liability. She found Director Freeh and Mr. Watson’s respective testimony to be unsatisfactory on the grounds that each witness’ testimony was largely eonclusory, and that each was testifying in his personal capacity and not as á representative of the FBI. She also found that the testimony given by Doctor Clawson was eonclusory as to defendants’ liability, and failed to provide evidence of the link between Saudi Hezbollah, Hezbollah, and Iran. Plaintiffs objected to these findings on three grounds. They argued that the evidence submitted is legally sufficient to sustain a finding of liability against defendants. They also argue that the evidence presented is consistent with, nearly identical to and — in some instances — more direct than liability evidence found by this Court to be sufficient as a matter of law in prior cases arising under the state-sponsor of terrorism exception to the FSIA. Finally, plaintiffs argue that the Court may take judicial notice of the facts and findings in Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran 2006 WL 2827372 (D.D.C. Sept.29, 2006) (Lamberth, J.), a case arising out of the same attack on the Khobar Towers. They argue that the facts from Blais, combined with the evidence submitted by plaintiffs in this matter, support a finding that defendants are liable in this matter. 1. Testimony of Director Louis J. Freeh and Dale L. Watson To establish the defendant’s liability for the bombing, plaintiffs offered the testimony of Louis J. Freeh, a former Director at the FBI, and Dale L. Watson, an agent and investigator at the FBI and CIA with over 20 years experience in the counterterrorism and counterintelligence fields. Over the course of the approximately four year investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing, both Freeh and Watson “reviewed all reports prepared by the FBI investigators, and spoke directly with FBI agents and Saudi officials” all of which established a link between the defendants and the bombing. All of the information conveyed to both Freeh and Watson was communicated by FBI agents who were on the scene. Based on this knowledge of the investigation, Mr. Freeh testified at the evidentiary hearing before the magistrate judge as to the defendants’ involvement in the Khobar Towers attack. In his testimony, Director Freeh testified that, during the course of the investigation into the explosion, it was concluded that the Khobar Towers explosion was the cause of a fertilizer-based explosive device. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 10.) It was also concluded, Director Freeh testified, that the bombing was an act of terrorism. Id. According to Director Freeh, the FBI also obtained a great deal of information linking the defendants to the bombing from interviews with six individuals arrested by the Saudis shortly after the bombing. Id. at 11-30. These six individuals, who were members of the Saudi Hezbollah organization, admitted to the FBI their complicity in the attack on the Khobar Towers. Exh. 7 at 11, 13-14, 27. The six individuals admitted that senior officials in the Iranian government provided them with funding, planning, training, sponsorship, and travel necessary to carry out the attack on the Khobar Towers. (Id. at 13-14; see also Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 24-30.) The six individuals also indicated that the selection of the target and the authorization to proceed was done collectively by Iran, MOIS, and IRGC, though the actual preparation and carrying out of the attack was done by the IRGC. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 25.) More specifically, Mr. Freeh testified, the FBI obtained specific information from the six about how each was recruited and trained by the Iranian government in Iran and Lebanon, and how weapons were smuggled into Saudi Arabia from Iran through Syria and Jordan. One individual described in detail a meeting about the attack at which senior Iranian officials, including members of the MOIS and IRGC, were present. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 23.) Several stated that IRGC directed, assisted, and oversaw the surveillance of the Khobar Towers site, and that these surveillance reports were sent to IRGC officials for their review. Another told the FBI that IRGC gave the six individuals a large amount of money for the specific purpose of planning and executing the Khobar Towers bombing. Adding credence to Mr. Freeh’s testimony is the reliability of the information he relied on in linking the defendants with the attack. First, Director Freeh testified that the information obtained from the six individuals was communicated to the FBI on more than one occasion. Second, there was a great deal of cross-corroboration among the individuals’ stories, even when each was interviewed by the FBI separately. Third, he testified that the material portions of each of the individuals’ accounts of the bombing did not contradict. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, in many instances the FBI was able to corroborate independently the statements made by the six individuals. As a result of this information and his direct participation in the four year investigation into the bombing, Director Freeh testified that it was his ultimate opinion that the bombing was the result of a terrorist attack by Saudi Hezbollah, organized and sponsored by the defendants in this case: Iran, MOIS, and IRGC. Mr. Watson, who was also an active member in the investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing, testified similarly to Director Freeh. According to Mr. Watson, the bases for his opinion were the direct conversations with the six Saudi Hezbollah members, the corroborating facts discovered from them confessions, his historical knowledge and public record of the Hezbollah organization and statements proffered in an indictment filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 52, 63.) All of this information was information Mr. Watson gleaned as a result either of his own personal research or his involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing investigation. Most importantly, Mr. Watson reached the same conclusion as Director Freeh that the bombing was the result of a terrorist attack by Saudi Hezbollah members, organized and sponsored by the defendants. 2. Dr. Clawson’s Expert Testimony as to Involvement by Iran, IRGC, and MOIS Plaintiffs also relied upon the testimony of Dr. Patrick Clawson to establish a more complete picture as to the involvement of Iran, MOIS, and IRGC in helping carry out the attack on the Khobar Towers. At trial, Dr. Clawson testified as an expert in three areas: (1) the government of Iran; (2) Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism; and (3) the Iranian economy. Dr. Clawson’s expert opinion regarding the perpetrators of the Khobar Towers bombing is based on his involvement on a Commission investigating the bombing, his top-secret security clearance, his discussions with Saudi officials, as well as his academic research on the subject. Exh. 9 at 62-63. Dr. Clawson testified that the government of Iran formed the Saudi Hezbollah organization. Id. at 56. He testified that the IRGC was responsible for providing military training to Hezbollah terrorists as to how to carry out a terrorist attack. Id. at 28. He also testified as to the defendants’ state-sponsorship of terrorism, noting that at the time of the Khobar Towers bombing, Iran spent an estimated amount of between $50 million and $150 million on terrorist activities. Exh. 10 at 46. In light of all these facts, Dr. Clawson stated conclusively his opinion that the government of Iran, MOIS, and IRGC were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, and that Saudi Hezbollah carried out the attack under their direction. Exh. 9 at 67-68. 8. Judicial Notice of Findings and Conclusions in Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran Plaintiffs argue that the Court should take judicial notice of the facts and conclusions made by this Court in its recent consideration of the matter of Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, an action brought against the same defendants for damages resulting from the same 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers. As has recently been noted in a FSIA case within this Circuit, “[a] court may take judicial notice of related proceedings and records in cases before the same court.” Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F.Supp.2d 105, 109 n. 6 (D.D.C.2005) (Bates, J.). As Judge Bates noted in Salazar, under Federal Rules of Evidence 201(e), a “party opposing judicial notice of a given fact must be afforded an opportunity to be heard ... and may certainly make recognized objections to the admissibility of such judicially noticed facts as evidence in the case....” Id. (internal citations omitted). Defendants in this case have failed to make such objections, or even make an appearance at all before this Court. Accordingly, in addition to the unopposed trial submissions made by plaintiffs in this matter, this Court will take judicial notice of the findings made in Blais as to the defendants involvement in and liability for the Khobar Towers bombing. In Blais, this Court found as fact that the Khobar Towers attack was carried out by individuals who referred to themselves as the group “Saudi Hezbollah.” Blais, 459 F.Supp.2d at 47-48. The Court found that these individuals were recruited by Brigadier General Ahmed Sharifi, a senior official of the IRGC. Id. Brigadier General Sharifi planned the operation, and recruited the individual members of Saudi Hezbollah at the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Syria. Id. He was also responsible for providing the funds, passports, and paperwork for the individuals who carried out the attack. Id. In addition to acknowledging General Sharifi’s involvement in the attack, this Court found that the attack was approved by the Ayatollah Khameini, Iran’s Supreme Leader at the time, and was approved and supported by Ali Fallahian, the head of MOIS at the time. Id. This Court heard testimony from and accepted documentary evidence considered by Dr. Bruce Tefft. Dr. Tefft expressed his opinion “that defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp were responsible for planning and supporting the attack on the Khobar Towers, including providing operational and financial support.” Blais, 459 F.Supp.2d at 48-49. Dr. Tefft’s testimony and the evidence accompanying his testimony are consistent with the testimony and evidence from Blais, including testimony made by Mr. Freeh. In fact, Dr. Tefft not only relied upon the conclusions put forth by Messrs. Freeh and Wats n in forming his own opinion in this matter, but Dr. Tefft stated that he agreed with their conclusions regarding the connection between Iran and Saudi Hezbollah in bringing about the bombing on the Khobar Towers. When asked as to the defendants’ involvement in the attack, Dr. Tefft stated that there was “ ‘no question about it. It wouldn’t have happened without Ira-' nian support.’ ” Id.. Finally, this Court considered written testimony from both former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Deputy Counter-terrorism Chief Dale Watson. In his written statement, Director Freeh stated that, based upon his involvement in the FBI’s five year investigation into the attack on the Khobar Towers, Iran was responsible for supporting and funding the attack. Id. Mr. Watson likewise stated unequivocally that, based upon information uncovered in the investigation into the attack, there was Iranian, MOIS, and IRGC involvement in the bombing. Id. As here, the Court found the conclusions of Messrs. Freeh and Watson in Blais to be amply reliable and probative as to the question of the defendants’ involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing. A Conclusion Upon de novo review of the evidence, the Court is convinced that the evidence is sufficiently satisfactory to establish liability. First, contrary to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the testimony by Freeh and Watson is not conclusory because the asserted statements made by Freeh and Watson do not lack supporting evidence. Director Freeh and Mr. Watson based their testimony upon their four year direct involvement in the investigation into the bombing, and their extensive years of experience in the counterintelligence and counterterrorism fields. Throughout this time, Messrs. Freeh and Watson, and the FBI agents they directly supervised, uncovered and synthesized a great deal of information about the attack on Khobar Towers and its perpetrators. The facts unearthed by this investigation led them to the six captured participants in the bombing, each of whom implicated the defendants as having organized, funded, and supported the attack. Accordingly, the Court finds that the facts testified to by Freeh and Watson were supported by more than a sufficient basis for the witnesses’ conclusions that Iran, MOIS, and IRGC were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing carried out by Saudi Hezbollah. The Court also fails to see the rationale behind Magistrate Judge Robinson’s conclusion that the testimony offered by Freeh and Watson was somehow less credible because it was made in their individual capacities, and not on behalf of the FBI for whom they were no longer employed. The reliability of a witness’ testimony should not and indeed does not hinge solely upon that person’s employment with a particular organization. Rather, the reliability and credibility of a witness’ testimony is determined by considering a myriad of factors including, inter alia, the witness’ demean- or, the ability of the witness to observe the information about which he is testifying, whether the testimony is corroborated by other facts introduced into evidence, as well as the witness’ prior experience. Applying these factors to the testimony of Messrs. Freeh and Watson, this Court finds their testimony to be undeniably credible and reliable. Each was directly involved in the investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing, and was personally familiar with the results from that investigation. This is bolstered by the fact that Freeh and Watson occupied leadership positions in overseeing the entirety of the investigation into the bombing. Such positions would undoubtedly place Freeh and Watson in the best possible position to assess all the information about the attack and make a logical conclusion as to the cause and perpetrators of the attack. In addition, their testimony was consistent with each other, with the testimony by Dr. Clawson, and with information available in the public record. Moreover, this Court has previously relied upon Freeh and Watson’s conclusions as to the involvement of Iran, IRGC, and MOIS in the Khobar Towers attack, and sees no reason to discount the credence of their testimony as conclusive on the grounds that they are not currently employed by the FBI. See Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F.Supp.2d 40, 47-49 (D.D.C.2006) (Lam-berth, J.) (finding as fact both Mr. Freeh and Mr. Watson’s conclusion as to the involvement of Iran,- IRGC, and MOIS in the Khobar Towers bombing). The fact that neither testified about the attack as agents of the FBI does not nullify the credibility of their statements. Messrs. Freeh and Watson’s intricate involvement with the investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing while they were with the FBI provides more than an adequate basis for their testimony and the conclusions each drew therein as to the perpetrators of the attack. The Court also disagrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation that Dr. Clawson’s testimony, whether evaluated alone or in conjunction with the testimony by Freeh and Watson, was unsatisfactory to establish liability. To the contrary — Dr. Clawson is a renowned scholar of Middle Eastern politics, who has studied and written about Iran- for years. In over 20 cases, Dr. Clawson has repeatedly provided this Court with reliable and credible testimony regarding the involvement of Iran, MOIS, and IRGC in sponsoring and organizing acts of terrorism carried out against citizens of the United States. The Court sees no reason to deviate from the judges in prior cases who found Dr. Clawson’s testimony to be satisfactorily reliable. Accordingly, having considered the evidence and testimony admitted at trial in the present case, this Court finds that plaintiffs have met their burden under the state-sponsored terrorism exception of the FSIA by establishing their right to relief “by evidence that is satisfactory to the Court[.]” The totality of the evidence at trial, combined with the findings and conclusions entered by this Court in Blais, firmly establishes that “the Khobar Towers bombing was planned, funded, and sponsored by senior leadership in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran; the IRGC had the responsibility and worked with Saudi Hizbollah to execute the plan, and the MOIS participated in the planning and funding of the attack.” Proposed Findings and Conclusions at 9, ¶ 28. V. Liability A. Proper Causes of Action Under the FSIA Once a foreign state’s immunity has been lifted under Section 1605 and jurisdiction is found to be proper, Section 1606 provides that “the foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1606. Section 1606 acts as a “pass-through” to substantive causes of action against private individuals that may exist in federal, state or international law. Dammarell v. Is lamic Republic of Iran, Civ. A. No. 01-2224, 2005 WL 756090, at *8-10, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5343, at *27-32 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2005) (Bates, J.) [hereinafter Dammarell II]. In this case, state law provides a basis for liability. First, the law of the United States applies rather than the law of the place of the tort or any other foreign law because the United States has a “unique interest” in having its domestic law apply in cases involving terrorist attacks on United States citizens. See Dammarell II, 2005 WL 756090, at *20, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5343, at *63. B. Applicable State Law Governing Causes of Action Having established that the laws of the United States apply in this action, the Court must determine the applicable state law to govern the action. As the forum state, District of Columbia choice of law rules apply to determine which state’s law shall apply. Under District of Columbia choice of law rules, courts employ a modified government interest analysis under which they “evaluate the governmental policies underlying the applicable laws and determine which jurisdiction’s policy would be most advanced by having its law applied to the facts of the case under review.” Hercules & Co. v. Shama Rest. Corp., 566 A.2d 31, 41 (D.C. 1989) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Generally, application of this governmental interest test points to the law of each plaintiffs domicile at the time of the attack as having the greatest interest in providing redress to its citizens. See Dammarell II, 2005 WL 756090, at *20-21, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5343, at *66-67 (citing Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law § 402(3) (1987)). Plaintiffs’ claims involve consideration of the law of thirteen different states. The estates and surviving family members of persons killed in the bombing have asserted wrongful death claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. In order to avoid repetition, the discussion will be organized by state, with an initial overview of each state’s law followed by a discussion of each plaintiffs asserted claims under those laws. C. Vicarious Liability The basis of defendants’ liability is that they provided material support and resources to Saudi Hezbollah, which personally completed the attack. One may be liable for the acts of another under theories of vicarious liability, such as conspiracy, aiding and abetting and inducement. This Court finds that civil conspiracy provides a basis of liability for Iran, MOIS, and IRGC, and accordingly declines to reach the issue of whether they might also be liable on the basis of aiding and abetting and/or inducement. The doctrine of civil conspiracy is recognized under the laws of each of the states each claimant has brought an action. Though each state has its own particular means of describing civil conspiracy, upon inspection of each state’s laws the elements of civil conspiracy are met in each state if it can be demonstrated that: (1) there is an agreement between' two or more persons or entities; (2) to do an unlawful act, or an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means; (3) there was an overt act committed in furtherance of this unlawful agreement; and (4) damages were incurred by the plaintiff as a proximate result of the actions taken pursuant to the conspiracy. In this case, the elements of civil conspiracy between Iran, MOIS, the IRGC and Saudi Hezbollah have been satisfied. As this Court has previously held, “sponsorship of terrorist activities inherently involves a conspiracy to commit terrorist attacks.” Flatow, 999 F.Supp. at 27. It is undisputed that Saudi Hezbollah committed the attack on the Khobar Towers. It has been established by evidence satisfactory to this Court that Saudi Hezbollah and defendants Iran,