On September 8, 2014, following the completion of the plaintiff’s case, Arab Bank filed a motion (known as a Rule 50 motion) asking the Linde Court to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Bank because the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case and meet the demanding requirements of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Nothing in the routine transactions at issue proves any evil intention on the part of the Bank’s employees, or any causal connection to the grave injuries at issue. Given this lack of evidence, the Bank asked the Court to enter a final judgment and dismiss the case. The evidence in the case – as outlined throughout the motion – shows that Arab Bank’s financial services were conducted with an innocent state of mind and were not the cause of the 24 acts of terrorism that injured these plaintiffs.
Specifically the Bank’s petition argues:
- No reasonable juror has a legally sufficient basis to find that the Bank’s financial services were a “but for” and proximate cause of each of the 24 attacks.
- No reasonable juror has a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that Arab Bank acted with “an intent to harm someone” in providing the financial services at issue.
- No reasonable juror has a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that Arab Bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas.
- The financial services at issue did not involve acts dangerous to human life or appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce civilians.
The Linde Court did not rule on the Bank’s motion and allowed the Jury to deliberate and reach a verdict. On October 10, 2014 the Bank renewed it motion.
Read Appendix A here.
Read Appendix B here.
Read Appendix C here.
Read Appendix D here.