53 F. Supp. 3d 191
D.D.C.2014Background
- Gilmore family sues PA and PLO under ATA § 2333 for Gilmore’s death in East Jerusalem; plaintiff estate seeks treble damages and related common-law claims.
- Gilmore, a US national, was security guard at NII in East Jerusalem and killed October 30, 2000 during Second Intifada violence.
- Plaintiffs rely on various custodial statements, book passages, and expert to prove Abu Halawa killed Gilmore; defendants argue such evidence is inadmissible hearsay.
- District Court granted summary judgment for defendants after finding no admissible evidence tying Abu Halawa to Gilmore’s death.
- Court’s ruling focused on admissibility of materials (hearsay, Rule 702, Daubert) and viability of ATA vicarious liability theories.
- Procedural posture: defendants moved for summary judgment; after extended briefing and consideration of discovery issues, court granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have admissible evidence that Abu Halawa killed Gilmore | Gilmore relies on Maslamani, Al Khatib, The Seventh War excerpt, and expert Eviatar | Evidence is inadmissible hearsay or lacks proper foundation | No admissible evidence; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether ATA liability can attach to PA/PLO given lack of admissible evidence | ATA provides recovery for US nationals harmed by internationally wrongful acts | No admissible proof of AT A predicate act by PA/PLO; no proof of agency for vicarious liability | Court need not address vicarious liability after lack of admissible core evidence |
| Whether the supplemental claims survive without proof of the killing | Supplements extend liability beyond direct killing | Without core evidence, supplements fail | Supplemental claims dismissed as none proven |
| Whether the expert Eviatar testimony is admissible under Rule 702 | Eviatar offers specialized analysis on reliability of hearsay | Eviatar lacks proper methodology; relies on inadmissible hearsay | Eviatar’s testimony excluded; not enough to survive summary judgment |
| Whether other evidentiary items (e.g., 803(8) reports, 804(b) statements) are admissible | Some items support the killing theory | Hearsay and lack of trustworthiness; unavailable or admissibility issues | IMFA reports and others excluded; cannot prove killing |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Parsons v. Palestinian Auth., 651 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Section 2331 elements and territorial requirements discussed; multiple opinions cited)
- Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC, 893 F. Supp. 2d 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (official Israeli reports inadmissible; hearsay concerns)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (admissible evidence and reasonable inferences in summary judgment)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping for expert testimony; reliability and relevance)
- United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011) (official public-records; admissibility concerns under Rule 803)
- Evans v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 674 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.D.C. 2009) (limits on expert testimony; lay jury competency)