Extraordinary Circumstances Results in Relief for the PLO
On March 25, 2010 in Erfrat Ungar et al. v. The Palestine Liberation Organization el al., docket number No. 09-1778, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the District Court of Rhode Island's decision to deny relief to the PLO from a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). Originally, the court noted, the PLO had decided not to participate in discovery nor answer the initial complaint and, instead, instituted a strategy of stonewalling that led to failure and a default judgment against it on July 12, 2004.
However in 2007, a radical shift in the organization and leadership of the PLO occurred. Its new counsel implemented the PLO's revised policy on dealing with foreign litigation to one of cooperation where they would litigate this matter fully and responsibly, id. 4. The PLO petitioned the District Court of Rhode Island to vacate the 2004 judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) due to exceptional circumstances, namely, the political transformation and the sensitive U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, especially that surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The District Court applied a categorial bar of relief under the view that the defendants engaged knowingly in their stonewalling strategy despite warnings of the consequences.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit remanded the District Court's decision to bar relief based on a categorial rule which in its view did not incorporate a full analysis of the totality of the circumstances, thus rewarding the PLO's change of heart. -- Stephanie Petrew, Legal Assistant, Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP, Washington, DC.
Sun, / Embassy Law Link