The Palestine Liberation Organization will get a second chance to appeal a United States court ruling that awarded $116 million in damages to the family of two terror victims.
The family of Yaron and Efrat Ungar had won a lower court case after Providence attorney David J. Strachman filed the lawsuit against the terrorist organization on behalf of the couple's estate after their murder during a June 1996 PLO terror attack. Yaron was an immigrant from the United States.
The couple was driving home from a wedding with their nine-month-old son when their car was blasted by machinegun gunfire near Beit Shemesh by PLO terrorists who were members of Hamas. Both parents were killed, although their baby was spared. Strachman, appointed by an Israeli court to handle the Ungars' estate, filed the lawsuit in Providence as the nearest federal court.
Senior U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux determined that the PLO had to pay the couple's family $116 million in damages, due to its willful refusal to respond to the lawsuit.
Listed among the defendants were the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat (head of PLO and PA, now deceased), Jibril Rajoub and Muhammed Dahlan (heads of PA Preventive Security Services), Amin al-Hindi and Tawfik Tirawi (heads of PA General Intelligence Services), Razi Jabali (head of Palestinian Police), Hamas and top Hamas operatives.
However, the terrorist group filed an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, saying it had had a good-faith change of heart and now has legitimate, merit-based arguments with which to defend itself.
The organization claimed that it had failed to respond to the initial lawsuit due to political extremism within the PLO, and within the Palestinian Authority. The brief filed by PLO attorneys underscored the unique nature and political ramifications of the case, and its potential impact on international relations.
A three-judge panel headed by Senior Circuit Judge Bruce M. Seya, and which included retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, ruled that the PLO should be given relief from the initial judgment resulting from a default under “exceptional circumstances.” The panel found that the PLO's arguments were “substantial,” writing that it was possible “the equities weigh in favor of litigating a case on the merits even after a willful default.”