On Friday December 6, 2019, the United States District Court, Central District of California, entered an order preliminarily approving a nationwide settlement in the matter of Elkies, et al v Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. et al. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Claim Administrator has established a Settlement Website (www.InfantsTylenolSettlement.com ) where copies of the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Notice and Claim forms may be downloaded and submitted and such other information as may be of assistance to Class Members.
Heideman Nudelman & Kalik, P.C. has filed on November 13, 2019 a Complaint in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael – Jewish National Fund (KKL-JNF) against Education for a Just Peace in the Middle East dba US Campaign for Palestinian Rights.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Court) has entered Judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, ordering the countries, both state sponsors of terrorism, to pay $165.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages in connection with the death of Max Steinberg.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Court awarded the damages to the family and estate of Max Steinberg, an American citizen who was serving as a lone soldier in the Israel Defense Forces. Max was in Gaza City searching for kidnapped victims of terror in the HAMAS terror tunnels when he was ambushed and killed.
As found by the Court, HAMAS, which immediately took credit for the attack, had been receiving and benefiting from funding, weapons and other material support provided by both Iran and Syria. Both countries have long been designated by the US State Department as State Sponsors of Terrorism and, therefore, do not enjoy sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The compensatory damages awarded by the court included $934,010 of estimated net economic loss to Max’s estate, as well as $5 million to each of his parents and $2.5 million to each of his siblings as compensation for the mental anguish, bereavement and grief which they suffered.
In addition, the Court awarded the family punitive damages in the amount of $150 million, consistent with other DC District Court decisions “to punish and deter foreign states from engaging in or materially supporting terrorism.”
The Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Heideman Nudelman & Kalik, PC. “We are most pleased by this decision of the Court,” said senior counsel Richard D. Heideman, “as it has provided a measure of justice for the Steinberg family and other American victims of terror and their families.” He continued, “As long as the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic and other state sponsors of terror continue to sponsor acts of international terror committed against Americans, we will fight to hold them legally accountable.”
Legal Memorandum/Brief submitted to
Israeli Attorney General
Legal Memorandum/Brief and Comparative Legal Analysis drafted by Nathan Lewin, Esq. with Alan Dershowitz, Esq., Richard D. Heideman, Esq., Professor Avi Bell and Joseph Tipograph, Esq. and submitted to Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, State of Israel with regard to issues relating to the claims of bribery and the media.
Associate Counsel Team
Nathan Lewin, Esq.
Alan Dershowitz, Esq.
Richard D. Heideman, Esq.
Professor Avi Bell
Joseph Tipograph, Esq.
FOR IMMEDATE RELEASE
Federal Court Holds Syria Accountable, Delivers Justice to the American Victims of the August 9, 2001 Sbarro Restaurant Suicide Bombing
Seventeen years ago, a HAMAS suicide bomber concealing explosives in a guitar case, entered the Sbarro Restaurant in Jerusalem, Israel just before 2:00pm and detonated his bomb. The 5-kg-10kg bomb, which was packed with nails, screws and bolts to ensure maximum damage, completely gutted the restaurant, which was full of lunch time diners, including school children.
The terrorist killed 15 people and injured 130 in the Sbarro attack. Among the victims killed was 15 year old Malka Roth, an American citizen.
In 2014, acting on behalf of the family of Malka Roth, attorneys Richard D. Heideman, Noel J. Nudelman and Tracy Reichman Kalik of Heideman Nudelman & Kalik PC, sued the Syrian Arab Republic and Syrian Air Force Intelligence for their state sponsorship of HAMAS and involvement in the Sbarro attack.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth presiding over the case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, styled Roth et, al, v. Syrian Arab Republic, et al., Civil Action No. 14-cv-01946, recently rendered his verdict. He awarded judgment against the Syrian defendants, holding them accountable for the Sbarro attack and awarding approximately $75 million in damages to the Roth family. Efforts to collect upon the Judgment from the Syrian defendants are expected to be initiated shortly.
“Today, lacking all legitimacy and in a desperate fight for its own survival, the Assad regime in Syria continues its sponsorship of terrorism and has turned on its own people. Human rights investigators report that Syria has murdered hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians since the Assad regime began to implode years ago,” said Richard D. Heideman.
Arnold Roth, Malki’s father, said “We are grateful that the law gives us a way to publicly and meaningfully express outrage at those who give the terrorists the means to do their evil. The sponsors of terror can and must be held legally accountable. “
Heideman further added “Syria has used chemical weapons on their own people and their neighbors in the region. As a state sponsor of terror subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, Syria deserves to be singled out for their sponsorship of heinous acts of murder. They must be punished. The victims of their terrorist acts deserve justice. This judgment is an important statement of the US District Court intended to punish Syria for its past acts and serve as a deterrent against future Syrian terrorism. We trust that the Court’s decision will provide some measure of justice for the victims of terrorism who lost life, limbs and loved ones.”
“We are disappointed by the Interpol vote to admit the ‘State of Palestine’ as a full member state,” Anti-Defamation League Senior Vice President for International Affairs Sharon Nazarian said in a statement. “We believe this admission is premature.”
“Today’s vote must be seen as the latest step in the ongoing Palestinian campaign to seek international recognition as a state outside the context of bilateral negotiations with Israel,” she continued. “Issues such as statehood, borders, security and related mechanisms can only be resolved through direct negotiations, and the international community should refrain from rewarding Palestinian efforts to circumvent this process.”
“There is also legitimate concern expressed by Israel that the Palestinians could use their membership in Interpol to mount unwarranted legal challenges, including travel bans and extradition requests, against Israeli military and security officials,” Nazarian concluded.
Attorney Richard D. Heideman — the president of the American Zionist Movement — stated, “The Palestinians have clearly not met the standards set by Interpol in contributing to make the world a safer place, in fact the opposite remains true. The murderous terrorist attack in Har Adar yesterday, which has yet to be properly condemned by the Palestinian leadership, is just another example of the unconscionable conduct of the PA/PLO’s use of sanctioned violence through an ongoing campaign of hatred, incitement and the providing of financial incentivization and rewards by the Palestinian Authority.”
“Accepting the Palestinians as the newest member of Interpol under such circumstances is a travesty for justice,” he went on to say. “Interpol now has an absurd situation where member states will share sensitive information with Palestinian police, whose members have been accused of involvement in countless murders and heinous attacks throughout the years. This is a dark day in the fight against global terrorism.”
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brought up the Interpol issue during a meeting in Jerusalem on Wednesday with US President Donald Trump’s visiting international negotiations representative, Jason Greenblatt.
According to Netanyahu’s office, the prime minister told Greenblatt that “the actions of the Palestinian leadership in recent days severely impair the chances of achieving peace,” and vowed that “Palestinian diplomatic warfare would not go unanswered.”
Also on Wednesday, international law expert and former Israeli diplomat Alan Baker wrote that Interpol’s action was “indicative of the total insensitivity of the international community, which out of political correctness and an incomprehensible eagerness to coddle the Palestinian leadership, fails to realize that in so doing they are giving the Palestinians a green light and license to incite and to reward terror.”
Originally published HERE
(Wednesday, 27th September 2017) – Richard D. Heideman, Senior Counsel of Washington based law firm Heideman Nudelman & Kalik, which represents American victims of terrorism in cases filed in US Federal Courts against Libya, Syria, Iran, the PLO and banks accused of providing material support for terror, has slammed the decision by the International Police Organization (Interpol) to accept the Palestinians as a member. “The Palestinians have clearly not met the standards set by Interpol in contributing to make the world a safer place, in fact the opposite remains true,” Heideman said. “The murderous terrorist attack in Har Adar yesterday, which has yet to be properly condemned by the Palestinian leadership, is just another example of the unconscionable conduct of the PA/PLO’s use of sanctioned violence through an ongoing campaign of hatred, incitement and the providing of financial incentivization and rewards by the Palestinian Authority.”
“Accepting the Palestinians as the newest member of Interpol under such circumstances is a travesty for justice.”
Interpol members passed the Palestinian membership application by 75 to 24 votes, with 34 abstentions. The Palestinians needed more than two-thirds of the yes-or-no votes counted, and on the one-country one-vote basis passed that threshold easily.
“Interpol now has an absurd situation where member states will share sensitive information with Palestinian police, whose members have been accused of involvement in countless murders and heinous attacks throughout the years,” Heideman continued. “This is a dark day in the fight against global terrorism.”
In March 2017, Richard D. Heideman gave the keynote address at the fourth annual Louis D. Brandeis Center National Law Student Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. The conference brought together law student leaders from 13 of LDB’s law student chapters across the country, and educated these students on topics including civil rights law; international law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict; legal responses to terror and how to pursue them; religious liberty; and how to use legal tools to combat anti-Semitism and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Additionally, the students were presented with networking opportunities amongst their peers, attorneys, and legal scholars.
Heideman’s address entitled “Holding Sponsors of Terrorism Legally Accountable” was a powerful declaration of the power of an individual lawyer to change the world. Heideman discussed overcoming insurmountable odds to bring cases against world leaders, foreign powers, and figures considered generally untouchable in the legal community. Heideman represented clients against Muammar Gaddafi, as well as the nations of Libya and Syria. Heideman sought justice for the victims of the Abu Nidal terrorist organization attacks on the Vienna and Rome airports, along with the American victims of the EgyptAir flight 648 hijacking. Heideman chronicled the difficult road his law firm faced in obtaining justice and compensation for victims of crimes that were perpetrated decades earlier, crimes for which no one believed justice could be obtained. Heideman spoke about the importance of anti-terrorism law, of having a White House committed to the fight against terror, and his theory of confluence: when the victims, lawyers, congressmen, hearings, an amenable White House, and the State Department all come together, anything can be accomplished. Richard Heideman ended his discussion with a piece of advice for all of the aspiring lawyers in the room “Stand up, speak out, and seek justice.
Read more about the Conference HERE.
by Emily Field
Law360, New York (November 3, 2016, 10:09 PM EDT) — A Utah federal judge on Thursday gave the final nod to a settlement between Garmin Ltd. and a class of consumers alleging that a model of its sports watches is defective and comes apart during use, including $385,000 in attorneys’ fees.
Under the terms of the deal, class members can who bought a Garmin Forerunner 610 between April 2011 and July 2014 can have the watch or the watchband repaired for free or replaced; those who have already paid to fix their watch can receive $50 to $75 back under the terms of the settlement. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby said that the settlement provides “significant value, both monetary and non-monetary” to the classes.
“The court hereby grants final approval of the settlement on the basis that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the settlement classes,” the judge said.
In addition to the attorneys’ fees, the judge also approved incentive awards of $1,250 each to class representatives Andrea and Joel Katz.
“We are pleased that the Court has recognized the fairness and value that this settlement has brought to consumers of the Forerunner 610 nationwide,” Noel J. Nudelman of Heideman Nudelman & Kalik PC told Law360 on Thursday. “The settlement not only provides class members with meaningful financial compensation but also provides an additional extended warranty to all class members.”
The Katzes filed suit in March 2014, claiming that that the watches are defective because the wristband separates from the watch while the user is running or participating in other physical activities, according to the complaint.
“The plastic watchband has an unacceptable rate of failure in that it detaches from the Forerunner 610, resulting in the loss or damage of the watch or the need for the consumer to spend his/her time and money to replace or fix the plastic watchband,” the complaint said.
Andrea Katz bought a Forerunner 610 watch for $350 as a gift for her husband because of its ability to track distances, navigate routes and monitor a variety of weather conditions, the complaint said.
Garmin’s marketing materials tout the “suitability of the Forerunner 610 in a variety of intense physical activities, including its ability to conduct ‘interval training,’ analyze bicycling and running routes, and measure aerobic fitness,” the complaint said.
When her husband used the watch while running, however, the plastic wristband detached from the watch as a result of the metal pins falling out or breaking, the complaint said. He brought the watch into the Garmin store to be repaired, but the same thing happened again three months later.
The third time the watch came apart, the Garmin salesperson recommended he buy a more resilient Velcro band at his own expense.
Garmin knew or should have known about the defects in the design and manufacturing of the watch, the complaint said. Despite its knowledge, Garmin refused to recall the Forerunner 610 or replace the plastic wristbands for free.
According to the complaint, there are tens of thousands of potential class members who bought the watches. On Amazon.com, there are more than 300 reviews and nearly 10 percent of those report the same problems, the complaint said.
A representative for Garmin declined comment.
The consumers are represented by Mark F. James of Hatch James & Dodge PC and Richard D. Heideman, Noel J. Nudelman and Tracy Reichman Kalik of Heideman Nudelman & Kalik PC.
Garmin is represented by Peter W. Herzog III of Wheeler Trigg & O’Donnell LLP, Kenneth Mallin and Jena M. Valdetero of Bryan Cave, and Francis M. Wikstrom and Zack L. Winzeler of Parsons Behle & Latimer.
The case is Katz et al v. Garmin Ltd et al., case number 2:14-cv-00165, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
—Editing by Joe Phalon.
The Lawfare Project has recruited dozens of international attorneys representing major firms and organizations to sign a letter to Tokyo Sexwale, Chairman of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Monitoring Committee for Israel and Palestine, informing him of flagrant and continuous violations of the FIFA statutes and codes by the Palestinian Football Association (PFA). The letter follows the complaint submitted by the PFA demanding that Israeli football clubs in disputed territories be kicked out of the institution. We are grateful to Jonathan Turner of UKLFI for helping us draft the letter.
The best defense is always a good offense. We therefore strongly urge the Israeli Football Association (IFA) to file claims with FIFA regarding the PFA’s behavior, which is so reprehensible that it warrants a suspension or expulsion of the PFA from the institution. FIFA must protect itself from politicization, and therefore it cannot address claims made against the Israeli team without simultaneously addressing claims against the Palestinians. The PFA, whose behavior is totally antithetical to the spirit and purpose of international sport, must be made aware that their frivolous complaints against the IFA render them equally vulnerable to investigation.
Disgraceful PFA violations of the FIFA statutes and ethical codes include:
The PFA punishing Palestinians who participate in football games with Israelis, in contravention of Article 5(1) of the FIFA Statute, which provides that “FIFA shall promote friendly relations between and among member associations and in society for humanitarian objectives.” This behavior also violates the prohibition of discrimination of any kind in Article 4 of the FIFA Statute and Article 23 of the FIFA Code of Ethics.
Officials of the PFA regularly denigrating Israel and Israelis, in breach of Article 23 of the FIFA Code of Ethics, which prohibits persons bound by the Code (including officials) from offending the dignity of a country or group of people through derogatory words or actions.
The promotion and glorification of terrorism inherent in Palestinian football clubs’ celebrations of terrorists who have killed Israelis; by naming their teams after dead Palestinian terrorists; and by praising acts of terrorism against Israelis. This behavior violates the physical and mental integrity of Palestinians in contravention of Article 24 of the FIFA Code of Ethics, by encouraging impressionable children to end their lives in suicide-homicide attacks and to emulate those terrorists being praised by their heroes, Palestinian athletes and football clubs.
The use of the platform given to the PFA and its leadership to promote a political agenda and politicize FIFA and international sport, generally. This conduct breaches Article 14 of the FIFA Code of Ethics, which requires political neutrality.
Read the full letter here.
If FIFA officials plan to take action against the Israeli clubs in disputed territories, they must also be prepared to acknowledge and punish the Palestinian Football Association for these brazen violations of FIFA codes. FIFA must protect itself and all institutions of international sport from being politicized and dishonored in Palestinian attempts to ostracize the Jewish state.