Hilton Hotel Bombing Case Doesn't Belong in U.S., Federal Judge Says

A federal judge in Manhattan has ruled that Egypt or Israel would be a better forum for a lawsuit against the Hilton Hotel chain brought by victims of the 2004 bombing of the Hilton Taba Hotel on Egypt's Sinai peninsula.

Dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Peter Leisure of the Southern District of New York said the plaintiffs - 157 Israelis and Russians - had no connection to the United States and that most of the witnesses are located in Egypt or Israel.

He also said either foreign country would be a better forum because many of the victims of the attack received medical treatment in Israel and that a lot of the evidence is in Hebrew or Arabic.

More than 30 people died Oct. 7, 2004, when a suicide bomber drove a vehicle packed with explosives into the lobby of the Taba Hotel.

According to Judge Leisure's opinion, the hotel is a "long-favored holiday destination" for Israelis and is marketed to Israeli tourists.

During fall 2004 Israeli intelligence officials issued public warnings of possible terrorist attacks in the Sinai.

In their lawsuit the plaintiffs contend that even though an attack was both "likely and foreseeable," the Taba Hotel's security was below the standards required in the Sinai region during that time period.

The plaintiffs are hotel guests and the victims' families.

The lawsuit alleges negligence and wrongful death against Hilton Hotels Corp. and Hilton International Co. for failing to exercise reasonable care to protect their guests.

Judge Leisure said the plaintiffs' choice of forum is not entitled to substantial deference because none of the 157 plaintiffs is a U.S. citizen or resident.

He added that there is some indication that the forum choice was "motivated by forum-shopping."

The judge noted that Moishe Zingel, the plaintiffs' Israeli counsel, told a newspaper reporter in January 2006 that the plaintiffs filed their claim in New York because of "the awareness of the Americans to terror activities since the twin tower disaster and the fact that the proceedings there will be conducted before a jury, which usually awards higher amounts of compensation."

Though this statement is not dispositive of the deference the court should give to the choice of forum, Judge Leisure said, "it does indicate that the generosity of juries in this district was a consideration for the plaintiffs in deciding to bring suit here."

The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they would not receive a fair trial in Egypt because there is a "pervasive and virulent anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias that permeates" the country.

"While the court does not believe that the extensive number of articles and reports cited in the plaintiffs' papers detailing anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sentiments can be dismissed as unsubstantial or wholly insufficient, the court cannot assume that Egyptian courts are unable to ignore the biases that might exist in the country and even in the legal profession," he wrote.

"Moreover," he said, "the plaintiffs have not pointed to any hostility targeted at this litigation or individuals connected with this case."

He added that if the plaintiffs are reluctant to bring suit in Egypt, they can pursue the action in Israel.

The defendants are "amenable to service in Israel," Judge Leisure said, and even presented evidence that Israel recognizes the types of claims raised in the case.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

Robert Sentner and Tamar Y. Duvdevani of Nixon Peabody in New York represented the plaintiffs.William P. Kardaras, Lori S. Kahn and Louise A. Kelleher of Kardaras & Kelleher in New York and Hilarie Bass and Mark A. Salky of Greenberg Traurig in Miami represented the defendants.