govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_19-cv-00830-9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
_________________________________________ 
 ) 
WILLIAM LEE, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiffs, ) 
 ) 
 v. ) Case No. 19-cv-00830 (APM) 
 ) 
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
_________________________________________ ) 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
This Memorandum Opinion addresses the recommended damages awards for 12 Plaintiffs 
as contained in Special Master Stephen A. Saltzburg’s Report and Recommendations Regarding 
Damages for Twelve Plaintiffs Identified in the Court’s April 28, 2026, and May 8, 2026, Orders, 
ECF No. 213 [hereinafter Report], submitted to the court on May 26, 2026. For the reasons stated 
below, the court adopts the Special Master’s recommendations. 
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
This case involves 99 attacks against the U.S. military by insurgents in Iraq who Plaintiffs 
allege were materially supported by Defendant Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) . The matter is 
brought by over 352 Plaintiffs, consisting of military servicemembers and contractors, their estates, 
and their family members. This court has now found Iran liable under the Foreign Sovereign 
Immunities Act (FSIA) for four “bellwether” attacks involving the claims of 20 Plaintiffs, Lee v. 
Islamic Republic of Iran (Lee I), 518 F. Supp. 3d 475, 496 (D.D.C. 2021), the injuries of Plaintiffs 
arising from 27 additional attacks, Lee v. Islamic Republic Iran (Lee II), 656 F. Supp. 3d 11, 56 –

2 
 
57 (D.D.C. 2023 ), and recently, the injuries of Plaintiffs arising from another 13 attacks, Lee v. 
Islamic Republic of Iran (Lee III), No. 19 -cv-830, 2026 WL 1218585 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2026); 
Order, ECF No. 204; Order, ECF No. 212. 
On May 1, 2026, the court appointed Special Master Stephen A. Saltzburg to take evidence 
and file reports and recommendations regarding the claims of the Lee III Plaintiffs. See Order 
Appointing Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg as Special Master, ECF No. 192. The court instructed 
that Special Master Saltzburg “be guided in reviewing and evaluating damages claims by Foreign 
Sovereign Immunities Act . . . opinions, including Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 
515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 54–56 (D.D.C. 2007); Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 
85 (D.D.C. 2010), and their progeny.” Id. at 2. 
Before the court is Special Master Saltzburg’s recommendations regarding damages for the 
solatium claims of 12 Plaintiffs who are family members of servicemembers killed in seven of the 
Lee III attacks. See generally Report. Plaintiffs do not object to the Report under Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 53(f)(2). See Notice of Non-Objection to Report, ECF No. 214. 
III. DISCUSSION 
A. Liability 
“Solatium claims under the FSIA are functionally identical to claims for intentional 
infliction of emotional distress.” Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 77 F. Supp. 3d 57, 7 1–72 
(D.D.C. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “They are intended to compensate persons for 
mental anguish, bereavement, and grief that those with a close personal relationship to a decedent 
experience, as well as the harm caused by the loss of the decedent’s society and comfort.” 
Id. (cleaned up). Under the FSIA, “United States nationals or their legal representatives have 
standing to bring a cause of action for damages including solatium where personal injury or death 

3 
 
results from state sponsored terrorism.” Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 999 F. Supp. 1, 29 
(D.D.C. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)). While solatium “began as a remedy for the loss of 
a spouse or a parent,” “[i]t has since expanded to include the loss of a child.” Id. at 29. 
All 12 family-member Plaintiffs have satisfied the FSIA’s nationality and immediate -
family requirements. See Lee III , 2026 WL 1218585, at *18; Order, ECF No. 204. They are 
therefore all permitted to bring solatium claims arising from their family member’s injuries. 
Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 78 F. Supp. 3d 379, 400 (D.D.C. 2015). The court now makes 
findings as to the injuries suffered by each family-member Plaintiff. 
1. Master Sergeant Tulsa Tuliau 
Master Sergeant (“MSG”) Tulsa Tuliau was killed in an attack on September 26, 2005, in 
FOB Rustamiyah, Iraq. The court previously found Iran liable for this attack. Lee III, 2026 WL 
1218585, at *6. 
Masina Tuliau. Plaintiff Masina Tuliau is MSG Tuliau’s mother. Report at 3. Masina 
considered MSG Tuliau’s birth a “true blessing.” Id. After MSG Tuliau’s death, Masina “found 
it difficult to eat or sleep,” as she had “lost [her] baby boy, the remaining man in [her] family.” Id. 
at 4. She has turned to her faith to “help her cope.” Id. The court therefore agrees with Special 
Master Saltzburg that Masina Tuliau is entitled to recover solatium damages arising from 
MSG Tuliau’s death. 
2. Staff Sergeant Jay Collado 
Staff Sergeant (“SSG”) Jay Collado was killed in an attack on February 20, 2006, in 
Hindiyah, Iraq. The court previously found Iran liable for this attack. Lee III, 2026 WL 1218585, 
at *6–7. 

4 
 
Judy Collado. Plaintiff Judy Collado is SSG Collado’s widow. Report at 5. SSG Collado 
was a “devoted, loving husband” to Judy. Id. at 6. When SSG Collado deployed to Iraq, Judy was 
“scared and worried for his safety” and “feared the knock at her door telling her that her husband 
would not be coming home.” Id. That day came on February 20, 2006, when officers came to 
Judy’s home to notify her that SSG Collado had been killed. Id. at 7–8. At SSG Collado’s funeral, 
his casket was closed because of the “brutal manner of his death,” depriving Judy of “closure” and 
the opportunity to “say good-bye.” Id. at 8. Because SSG Collado’s body had not originally been 
returned intact, Judy continued to receive his body parts even after the funeral. Id. Judy was thus 
forced to bury her husband three times, each time reliving a “nightmare.” Id. The death and 
repeated burials on top of caring for their daughter caused significant hardship. Id. The court 
therefore agrees with Special Master Saltz burg that Judy Collado is entitled to recover solatium 
damages arising from SSG Collado’s death. 
Kaiya Collado. Plaintiff Kaiya Collado is SSG Collado’s daughter. Id. at 5. Kaiya was 
only five years old when her father died and has experienced considerable difficulty from 
“navigating through life without a father .” Id. at 9–10. When SSG Collado died, Kaiya lost not 
only her father’s presence, but also the “relationship they would have built” and “the guidance he 
would have offered .” Id. at 11. The court therefore agrees with Special Master Saltzburg that 
Kaiya Collado is entitled to recover solatium damages arising from SSG Collado’s death. 
3. Captain Kevin Landeck 
Captain (“CPT”) Kevin Landeck was killed in an attack on February 2, 2007, in 
FOB Mahmudiyah, Iraq. The court previously found Iran liable for this attack. Lee III, 2026 WL 
1218585, at *8. 

5 
 
Victoria Landeck. Plaintiff Victoria Landeck is CPT Landeck’s mother. Report at 11–12. 
Victoria describes her relationship with her son “as a special and rare one.” Id. at 12. When 
CPT Landeck deployed to Iraq in 2006, she was “consumed with the fear that something bad would 
happen.” Id. at 13. After receiving the news of CPT Landeck’s passing, Victoria “fell to the floor, 
in disbelief and heart wrenching pain ,” feeling that s he had lost her “pride and joy.” Id. at 14. 
Victoria struggled to process the loss , as she felt like she “was watching a horror movie of [her] 
life.” Id. At the funeral, CPT Landeck’s “terribly disfigured” face was “a gruesome image” and 
a “heartbreaking reminder” of his last moments. Id. CPT Landeck’s death has caused Victoria to 
feel that the “‘fabric’ of [her] family had been torn.” Id. The court therefore agrees with Special 
Master Saltzburg that Victoria Landeck is entitled to recover solatium damages arising from 
CPT Landeck’s death. 
Richard Landeck. Plaintiff Richard Landeck is CPT Landeck’s father. Id. at 11 –12. 
CPT Landeck was Richard’s “pride and joy.” Id. at 15. Richard was “terrified” about his son’s 
deployment to Iraq in 2006. Id. at 16. Hearing the news of his son’s death the following year left 
Richard “in shock and in disbelief.” Id. Having to then notify his wife made him feel “as if salt 
were being poured in [their] family’s deep collective wound.” Id. at 17. During the funeral, all 
Richard felt was “numb and traumatized.” Id. The pain of CPT Landeck’s death was “constant” 
and “difficult,” and it caused Richard to feel he “had failed as a father” to keep his son safe. Id. 
The court therefore agrees with Special Master Saltzburg that Richard Landeck is entitled to 
recover solatium damages arising from CPT Landeck’s death. 

6 
 
4. Private First Class Cameron Payne 
Private First Class (“PFC”) Cameron Payne was killed in an attack on June 11, 2007, in 
Baghdad, Iraq. The court previously found Iran liable for this attack. Lee III, 2026 WL 1218585, 
at *8–9. 
Denise Jackson. Plaintiff Denise Jackson is PFC Payne’s mother. Report at 18. 
PFC Payne was Jackson’s “pride and joy.” Id. When she was notified of her son’s passing , 
Jackson “collapsed” and felt as if she were “moving through someone else’s life.” Id. at 22. At the 
wake, because PFC Payne had been “disfigured by injury,” Jackson “clung to the possibility” that 
it was not her son laying in the casket. Id. PFC Payne’s death “reshaped” Jackson’s life, and she 
still struggles with “painful reminders” that often reopen “deep wounds.” Id. at 22–23. Even after 
years, Jackson cannot “bear to look at [her] son’s things.” Id. at 23. Jackson will forever feel the 
“lasting impact” of her son’s death and the “silence he left behind.” Id. The court therefore agrees 
with Special Master Saltzburg that Denise Jackson is entitled to recover solatium damages arising 
from PFC Payne’s death. 
5. Private Second Class Randol Shelton 
Private Second Class (“PV2”) Randol Shelton was killed in an attack on September 4, 
2007, in New Baghdad, Iraq. The court previously found Iran liable for this attack. Lee III, 2026 
WL 1218585, at *10–11. 
Darlene Shelton. Plaintiff Darlene Shelton is PV2 Shelton’s mother. Report at 24. The 
day Darlene was notified of her son’s death was “the worst day of [her] life.” Id. at 26. For days, 
Darlene struggled to get out of bed , eat, or care for her other children . Id. at 26–27. Receiving 
PV2 Shelton’s casket left Darlene “overwhelmed with emotion ,” and the funeral service felt like 
“living through a bad dream .” Id. at 27. Being reminded of PV2 Shelton causes Darlene great 

7 
 
pain to this day: Foods that her son enjoyed bring her a sense of “deep sadness.” Id. PV2 Shelton’s 
birthdays remind Darlene of “all that has been lost” and “all he never had the chance to 
experience.” Id. at 28. And photos of PV2 Shelton are reminders of both “happier times” and 
“intense loss.” Id. at 25. The court therefore agrees with Special Master Saltzburg that Darlene 
Shelton is entitled to recover solatium damages arising from PV2 Shelton’s death. 
6. Staff Sergeant Laurent West 
SSG Laurent West was killed in an attack on March 11, 2008, in Babil Province, Iraq. The 
court previously found Iran liable for this attack. Lee III, 2026 WL 1218585, at *11. 
Michelle West. Plaintiff Michelle West is SSG West’s widow. Report at 29. The night 
she received the “terrible news” that her husband had passed , Michelle’s world “turned upside 
down.” Id. at 33. The first year after SSG West’s death was particularly “brutal.” Id. Michelle 
struggled to attend her daughter’s graduation, SSG West’s funeral, and then her grandmother’s 
funeral. Id. Holidays were another painful reminder of the time she would never get to spend with 
her husband. Id. Her mental health suffered, and she felt h er future was “bleak and empty.” Id. 
The court therefore agrees with Special Master Saltzburg that Michelle West is entitled to recover 
solatium damages arising from SSG West’s death. 
7. Corporal Brian Connelly 
Corporal (“CPL”) Brian Connelly was killed in an attack on February 26, 2009, in 
Baghdad, Iraq. The court previously found Iran liable for this attack. Lee III, 2026 WL 1218585, 
at *12. 
Kara Connelly. Plaintiff Kara Connelly is CPL Connelly’s widow. Report at 36. Kara 
struggled with CPL Connelly’s absence during his deployment to Iraq. Id. at 38. That was greatly 
exacerbated when she received the news that CPL Connelly had died. Kara describes that moment 

8 
 
as “a bad dream [that] had been realized ” and when the “life [she] knew was over.” Id. at 39. 
Kara’s mental and physical health took a toll in the year following CPL Connelly’s death. Id. And 
the magnitude of the stress contributed to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Id. at 40. Even today, 
Kara believes her life “remains uncomplete.” Id. The court therefore agrees with Special Master 
Saltzburg that Kara Connelly is entitled to recover solatium damages arising from CPL Connelly’s 
death. 
Jean Dammann. Plaintiff Jean Dammann is CPL Connelly’s mother. Id. at 35. On the 
night that Jean received the news of her son’s passing, she “was unable to speak” from the shock. 
Id. at 44. In disbelief, Jean attempted to tra vel to see and confirm her son’s body but was 
“consumed with rage” when she was informed that she could not. Id. CPL Connelly’s death had 
serious consequences on Jean’s mental and physical health, affecting her ability to work, maintain 
close personal relationships, and do activities she once enjoyed. Id. at 45. Jean’s world has been 
turned “upside down” and her grief remains significant. Id. The court therefore agrees with 
Special Master Saltzburg that Jean Dammann is entitled to recover solatium damages arising from 
CPL Connelly’s death. 
Mark Dammann. Plaintiff Mark Dammann is CPL Connelly’s stepfather. Id. at 47. The 
night Mark found out that his stepson had been killed, “[t]he only thing [he] could do was duct 
tape [his] wound,” because his wife and their other son needed his help. Id. at 50. Mark worked 
a full-time job and took over household duties, trying to keep from “fall[ing] apart.” Id. at 51. 
Alongside his family’s grief , living through his own was “an assault on [his] emotional and 
physical wellbeing.” Id. CPL Connelly’s death has caused “irreparable damage” to Mark’s family 
and Mark’s life to “los[e] its luster.” Id. at 51–52. The court therefore agrees with Special Master 

9 
 
Saltzburg that Mark Dammann is entitled to recover solatium damages arising from 
CPL Connelly’s death. 
Kevin Connelly. Plaintiff Kevin Connelly is CPL Con nelly’s brother. Id. at 53. 
CPL Connelly was the person Kevin “trusted most in the world.” Id. The day Kevin learned about 
his brother’s death was “surreal,” and it took time for that fact to “sink in.” Id. at 55. 
At CPL Connelly’s wake, Kevin tried to “keep [his] emotions in check” but “lost control.” Id. 
Kevin ultimately pulled away from his family and struggled to address his grief alone. Id. at 55–
56. Since then, he has worked to “forget what happened” to his brother “because remembering 
what happened to him is still too painful.” Id. at 57. The court therefore agrees with Special 
Master Saltzburg that Kevin Connelly is entitled to recover solatium damages arising from 
CPL Connelly’s death. 
B. Damages 
“In determining the appropriate award of damages for solatium, the Court may look to prior 
decisions awarding damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as to decisions 
regarding solatium.” Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 78 (D.D.C. 2010) 
(internal quotation marks omitted ). This district “has developed a general framework for the 
calculation of proper damage awards in FSIA cases” based on principles articulated in Estate of 
Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 466 F. Supp. 2d 229, 269 –70 (D.D.C. 2006). See Oveissi v. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F. Supp. 2d 16, 26 (D.D.C. 2011). “Spouses typically receive greater 
damage awards than parents, who, in turn, receive greater awards than siblings,” and “families of 
victims who have died are typically awarded greater damages than families of victims who remain 
alive.” Heiser, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 269. 

10 
 
Under this framework, spouses of deceased victims receive $8 million, parents and children 
receive $5 million, and siblings receive $2.5 million. Spencer v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 
71 F. Supp. 3d 23, 27 (D.D.C. 2014) (first citing Heiser, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 269; then citing Valore, 
700 F. Supp. 2d at 85). Where the victim does not die but instead suffers injury, solatium awards 
are halved: spouses receive $4 million, parents and children receive $2.5 million, and siblings 
receive $1.25 million. Id. But these numbers “are not set in stone,” and courts “may award greater 
amounts in cases with ‘aggravating circumstances.’” Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 85; see also 
Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Ministry of Foreign Affs., 892 F.3d 348, 351 (D.C. Cir. 2018) 
(“District Court judges have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) to grant solatium awards based 
on the particular facts of each case, subject to abuse-of-discretion review for errors of law, clearly 
erroneous factual findings, and faulty reasoning.”). 
Here, the Special Master recommends the following monetary awards for each of the 
12 family-member Plaintiffs based on their relationship to the victim: 
Plaintiff Solatium Claim Punitive Damages Claim 
Masina Tuliau $5,000,000 $10,000,000 
Judy Collado $8,000,000 $16,000,000 
Kaiya Collado $5,000,000 $10,000,000 
Victoria Landeck $5,000,000 $10,000,000 
Richard Landeck $5,000,000 $10,000,000 
Denise Jackson $5,000,000 $10,000,000 
Darlene Shelton $5,000,000 $10,000,000 
Michelle West $8,000,000 $16,000,000 
Kara Connelly $8,000,000 $16,000,000 
Jean Dammann $5,000,000 $10,000,000 
Mark Dammann $5,000,000 $10,000,000 
Kevin Connelly $2,500,000 $5,000,000 
 
Based on the findings the court has made regarding these 12 family-member Plaintiffs and the 
award framework set forth in Spencer and Valore, the court agrees with Special Master Saltzburg 
that the 12 family-member Plaintiffs should receive the amount they each claim in solatium. 

11 
 
The court also agrees that the 12 Plaintiffs should be awarded the punitive damages they claim, as 
the figure comports with the court’s determination that punitive damages shall be the equivalent 
of the compensatory damages multiplied by two. See Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 145, at 8; id. 
at 1–3 (holding that Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages for harms caused by all attacks in 
this case). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts the recommendations of Special Master Stephen 
A. Saltzburg’s Report and Recommendations Regarding Damages for Twelve Plaintiffs Identified 
in the Court’s April 28, 2026, and May 8, 2026, Orders, ECF No. 213. 
A separate Order and Judgment consistent with these findings accompanies this 
Memorandum Opinion. 
 
 
 
 
 
Dated: May 28, 2026 Amit P. Mehta 
 United States District Judge 
 

Passage view · GavelSight