WHEREFORE, Cataldo Anthony Nashton, Claudia Comino, Mark Nashton, and Myles Nashton, demand judgment against the Defendants, The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, jointly and severally, for each in the amount of TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS ($20,000,000.00), besides costs. COUNT CCXI TERESA BATHOLOMEW, CRYSTAL BARTHOLOMEW, MARK E. BARTHOLOMEW, JERRY BARTHOLOMEW, AND JOYCE BARTHOLOMEW SOLATIUM CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1605A AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL AND STATE COMMON LAW FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (444) Plaintiff’s, Teresa Bartholomew, Crystal Bartholomew, Mark E. Bartholomew, Jerry Bartholomew, and Joyce Bartholomew, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with like effect as if alleged herein. (445) As a direct consequence of the actions of the Defendants, The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, the Plaintiff’s, the wife, children, and parents, of Mark Bartholomew have suffered extraordinary grief and mental anguish, in that the defendants, acting through their agents and by their conduct intended through infliction of physical injury upon Mark Bartholomew to cause severe emotional distress upon his family, Teresa Bartholomew (wife), Crystal Bartholomew (daughter), Mark E. Bartholomew (son), Jerry Bartholomew (father), and Joyce Bartholomew (mother), beneficiaries of this action and the c

Accordingly, the statute violates the Due Process Clause by allowing personal jurisdiction over foreign state defendants where there are insufficient minimum contacts between the defendant and the United States. Compare 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605A(a)(1)-(2) with 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) (requiring either direct connections with the United States or acts that “cause[] a direct effect in the United States” before jurisdiction is permitted) and Foreign Sovereign 28 Case 1:06-cv-00734-RBW Document 40 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 38 of 42 Immunities Act of 1976: Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. NO. 94-1486 at 13 (1976) (stating that the FSIA complies with Constitutional principles of personal jurisdiction: “Significantly, each of the immunity provisions in the bill, sections 1605-1607, requires some connection between the lawsuit and the United States, or an express or implied waiver by the foreign state of its immunity from jurisdiction. These immunity provisions, therefore, prescribe the necessary contacts which must exist before our courts can exercise personal jurisdiction.”)

C. Plaintiffs do not consent and strenuously oppose a dismissal of Pflug, and request consolidation as set forth above. Pflug was filed after the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, which said newly-enacted legislation the Defendants have advised they intend to challenge. Plaintiffs assert to the Court that they cannot permit their clients to have either Baker or Pflug dismissed because of the risk of unintended consequences arising from Defendants’ challenge to the newly-enacted legislation, which Defendants may argue alternatively affects Baker on the one hand, and Pflug on the other, in different ways.

Law No. 110-181, Sec. 1083(c)(3), Plaintiffs are granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint to reflect that this matter has been (i) refiled under 28 U.S.C.§ 1605A(d), and to assert causes of action under this new statute; and b. directs, that upon the filing of the Court’s Order, the Clerk of Court shall receive and file said Second Amended Complaint, to which the Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; A proposed Order is attached. February 22, 2008 Respectfully Submitted, HEIDEMAN NUDELMAN & KALIK, PC 1146 19th Street NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202.

Plaintiffs in this case commenced an action under “section 1605(a)(7) (before the date of the enactment of this section)” on April 19, 2006, or within “10 years after April 24, 1996” and now seek to maintain the case under § 1605A, as contemplated by the explicit language of Section 1083 of the DAA 2008.

. * * * In sum, plaintiffs Motion to Amend should be denied because Plaintiffs do not satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 1083(c)(2)(A), which is the exclusive means in the statute for Case 1:06-cv-00731-GK Document 54 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 7 of 10 8 bringing “prior actions” within 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. Specifically, (i) Plaintiffs brought their claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1), not 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7); (ii) Plaintiffs never relied upon 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) as providing a cause of action; and (iii) even if § 1605(a)(7) had provided a cause of action, and plaintiffs had relied upon that provision, plaintiffs still would not be entitled to relief under that provision, because, as insurers, they could not claim relief for personal injury or death as required by § 1605(a)(7), and they are not “U.S. nationals” within the meaning of § 1605(a)(7).

Indeed, the word “solatium” does not appear in § 1605A(a)(1), but as part of a list of damages in the private right of action provision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Plaintiffs simply cannot seize on a single word that appears in a damages list in § 1605A(c) to read a whole new category of claimants into § 1605A(a)(1), counter to congressional intent to limit the categories of plaintiffs.

28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). It also provides that the foreign state shall be liable for additional damages relating the reasonably foreseeable property loss that was incurred by reason of the same acts of terrorism 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(d). 5 Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187, 1191-93 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that plaintiffs with pending actions at the time of the passage of the NDAA may continue to pursue them under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and the Flatow Amendment, supplemented by state causes of action).

However, even if–contrary to our arguments–plaintiffs’ claims were time barred under former Section 1605(a)(7), they are manifestly not time-barred under new Section 1605A as enacted in the recent Defense Authorization Act. A. Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Was Filed Within the Ten-Year Limitations Period, and Was Not Time Barred.

Law No. 110- 181, Sec. 1083(c)(2)(B), Plaintiffs are granted leave to file the Amended Complaint to reflect that this matter has been (i) refiled under 28 U.S.C.§ 1605A(c), and to assert causes of action under this new statute; and (ii) grants the Plaintiffs’ leave to file the Amended Complaint that adds the Simpson Plaintiffs and the Case 1:06-cv-00727-GK Document 44 Filed 02/22/2008 Page 8 of 10 9 Additional Swies Plaintiffs, in accordance with Pub. Law No. 110- 181, Sec.