A federal appeals panel has ruled the parents of a teenager slain in Israel by terrorists, may resume their lawsuit against a Chicago-area Palestinian group, because a federal judge was wrong to conclude the case couldn't be heard in federal court.
The Aug. 16 decision was written by Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, with agreement from Circuit Judges Michael Kanne and Thomas Kirsch, of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The ruling gave hope to Stanley and Joyce Boim in their action against Bridgeview-based American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and Rafeeq Jaber, who has been associated with suburban Palestinian organizations.
In 1996 in Jerusalem, the Boims' 17-year-old son, David Boim, was shot to death by two members of the Hamas international terrorist organization. David was attending school in Israel. The Boim couple are U.S. citizens, but live in Israel.
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael Y. Scudder
The Boims successfully sued individuals and organizations in the U.S. that they said financed Hamas, receiving a $156 million award in 2004. The original group defendants were the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and Islamic Association for Palestine. The groups dissolved in 2004, reforming two years later into the AMP to avoid paying the award, according to the Boims. The Boims said Jaber participated in the dissolution of the Islamic Association to make way for the AMP.
By May 2017, the Boims had only collected morsels from defendants, prompting them to sue the AMP in Chicago federal court, according to court papers. The Boim couple cited in their suit the civil liability provision of the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act.
District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman tossed the suit, allowing the Boims to amend their complaint, which they did. However, Coleman also threw out the second complaint, concluding the Boims did not show the old groups were masquerading as the AMP or that the AMP backed Hamas. Based on her finding that no tie was shown between the old groups and the new one, Coleman ruled she did not have jurisdiction.
On appeal, Circuit Judge Scudder observed that Coleman "conflated a merits inquiry" — whether AMP was an alter ego of the old groups — with the question of jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss that Coleman granted, was an attack on the merits of the case, not on Coleman's authority to adjudicate the dispute, Scudder noted.
"At this threshold stage of litigation, it matters not whether the Boims’ amended complaint states a meritorious claim on a federal cause of action. All that matters" for "jurisdiction is that the amended complaint 'pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States,'" Scudder said, quoting from a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Scudder noted the elements are present for district court jurisdiction: The Boims have standing; there is a "live dispute;" the issue is ripe for resolution; and the suit arises from federal law.
Scudder pointed out the U.S. Supreme Court has stated it is proper for a district court to assert "ancillary jurisdiction" over subsequent proceedings in the same case, even against third parties, to protect and enforce judgments, as in the Boim matter.
"The most straightforward path for enforcing a judgment is a continuation of legal proceedings in the same court," Scudder said.
The Boims are represented by the Chicago firm of Jaszczuk P.C., as well as by Lewin & Lewin LLP, of Washington, D.C.
Defendants are defended by the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America, of Richardson, Texas, and by Durkin & Roberts, of Chicago.
A friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Boims was filed by 14 people who said they were terrorist victims, and have sued the Islamic Republic of Iran and a number of foreign corporations.
Another brief, which backs the Boims, was submitted by the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago.