Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization
60 F. Supp. 3d 509
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens or representatives of U.S. citizens injured or killed in seven shootings/bombings in/near Jerusalem (2001–2004) and sued the PLO and Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and state common-law torts.
- Plaintiffs advance two ATA theories: respondeat superior (vicarious liability for PA/PLO employees’ predicate crimes) and direct liability for providing material support to terrorist organizations (Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades/AAMB) or individual terrorists.
- Plaintiffs present disputed evidence linking specific attackers to PA security forces (identifications, convictions, promotions, payrolls, martyr payments, alleged provision of weapons, phones, funds, safehouses); defendants contest admissibility and causation/ scienter.
- The court found triable issues for vicarious liability against the PA (all plaintiffs except Mandelkorn) but granted summary judgment for vicarious liability claims against the PLO and denied vicarious liability for the Mandelkorn plaintiffs.
- The court found triable issues on direct liability (material support/harboring) with respect to support to Hamas and the AAMB for certain attacks (e.g., Hebrew University bombing), denying summary judgment on these claims.
- The court granted summary judgment for defendants on all non-federal claims because, under New York law (Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(3)), the PA and PLO are unincorporated associations that lack capacity to be sued on those state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vicarious liability under ATA (PA) | PA is liable under respondeat superior for attacks by PA employees acting within scope of employment | Monell-type municipal policy standard should apply; insufficient admissible evidence tying attackers to PA employment/scope | Denied SJ as to PA vicarious liability for all plaintiffs except Mandelkorn — triable issues exist for jury (scope, foreseeability, ratification circumstantial evidence) |
| Vicarious liability under ATA (PLO) | PLO liable as employer for acts of its agents or connected Fatah leaders | No factual basis linking PLO as employer of attackers; insufficient evidence | Granted SJ — PLO vicarious liability dismissed |
| Direct liability / material support under ATA (2339A/B/C) | PA/PLO provided personnel, weapons, funds, phones, safehouses, harboring; supported Hamas/AAMB and known terrorists | Evidence insufficient, attenuated causation, lack of scienter; some statutes unavailable retroactively | Denied SJ — triable issues exist re: provision of weapons, funds, harboring, and knowledge/deliberate indifference for certain events (e.g., support to Abdullah Barghouti and AAMB) |
| Capacity to be sued on non-federal (state) claims | Plaintiffs: apply Israeli law or treat defendants as public bodies; capacity exists | Defendants: under New York law they are unincorporated associations and lack capacity; Rule 17(b)(3) applies | Granted SJ for defendants on non-federal claims — under New York law PA/PLO are unincorporated associations without capacity to be sued on state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability rule distinguishing respondeat superior in §1983 context)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (civil RICO standard: civil liability requires preponderance, not criminal beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC, 893 F. Supp. 2d 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (discusses ATA elements, proximate cause, and limits on attenuated liability)
- Estate of Parsons v. Palestinian Authority, 651 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (respondeat superior liability for PA employees under ATA; concurrence discussing treble damages/punitive damages distinction)
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992) (proximate cause in federal civil suits; foreseeability limits on causation)