Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC
893 F. Supp. 2d 542
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Gill filed suit under the ATA seeking damages for injuries from a 2008 Gaza shooting, naming Arab Bank as defendant.
- Gill's amended complaint asserted five claims including aiding and abetting Hamas, conspiracy, and three material-support theories.
- The court had previously ruled on pleadings and admissibility in Gill I and Gill II, with discovery largely completed and a summary judgment schedule set.
- The Bank challenged the claims on summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence of unlawful action, requisite mental state, and proximate causation.
- The court evaluated admissibility, evidentiary weight, and the effect of withheld foreign-bank-secrecy documents under spoliation principles.
- The court ultimately granted summary judgment for the Bank, dismissing all ATA claims and withdrawing trial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful action under ATA | Gill contends the Bank aided/abetted Hamas or conspired to commit international terrorism. | Arab Bank argues no predicate unlawful action proven; no direct or proximate conduct tied to Hamas actionable acts. | No genuine dispute; Bank did not commit unlawful action. |
| Mental state requirement under ATA | Gill asserts recklessness/knowledge by the Bank in providing support to Hamas with intent to harm Americans. | Bank shows no evidence of requisite scienter by its officers or employees; potential acts remote in time. | Insufficient evidence of willful/reckless mental state; no basis for liability. |
| Proximate causation | Gill argues Bank's transfers and support to Hamas proximate cause of the shooting and injury. | Even if Hamas responsible, Bank's actions were not the proximate cause or sufficiently connected in time/scale. | No proximate causation shown; plaintiffs fail to prove Bank's actions caused the injury. |
| Adverse inference from withholding documents | Gill seeks adverse inferences from documents Bank withheld due to foreign bank secrecy. | Spoliation standards and balancing of foreign-secrecy interests limit probative weight of any inference. | Adverse inference not sufficient to defeat summary judgment; not enough to raise triable issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden on movant to show absence of evidence to support essential element)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.1998) (standard for adverse-inference in spoliation context)
- Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 755 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2010) (US interest in deterring terrorism outweighs foreign-secrecy concerns)
- Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC, 893 F.Supp.2d 474, 2012 WL 4960358 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (Gill I: governing substantive and procedural law for ATA claims)
- Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC, 893 F.Supp.2d 523, 2012 WL 5177592 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (Gill II: admissibility of expert and lay evidence)