9th Circuit Relieves Twitter of Liability in Deadly 2015 Terrorist Attack
A federal appeals court in California ruled Wednesday that the families of two defense contractors killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Jordan cannot sue Twitter for allegedly enabling terror group ISIS.
January 31, 2018 at 05:52 PM
4 minute read
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM
A federal appeals court in California ruled Wednesday that the families of two defense contractors killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Jordan cannot sue Twitter for allegedly enabling terror group ISIS.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a ruling by U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California, who said Twitter was not complicit in the Nov. 9, 2015, shooting deaths of the contractors, Lloyd Fields Jr. and Damon Creach.
Ninth Circuit Judge Milan Smith, joined by fellow Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta and U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation, affirmed a decision by Orrick, sitting in San Francisco, to dismiss the case.
Smith said the panel agreed with Orrick that the families were unable to demonstrate that Twitter knowingly cooperated with ISIS, which through its accounts discussed and bragged about the deaths of Fields and Creach.
“Proximate causation was not shown in this case,” Smith said. “Though we do no diminish the tragedy of the events that led to this lawsuit, we hold that [plaintiffs] have not pleaded that Twitter's provision of accounts and messaging services to ISIS had any direct relation to the injuries … suffered.”
Both Fields and Creach were from Florida. Twitter is headquartered in San Francisco.
According to the court, Creach worked as a law enforcement instructor for DECO Inc., a privately held company that performs a range of law enforcement and security work, and Fields, who also was an instructor, was employed by DynCorp International, another contractor.
Three others died and six others were wounded in the attack at the Jordanian International Police Training Center in Amman. A Jordanian police captain, Anwar Abu Zaid, was the lone gunman, and ISIS reportedly claimed it was responsible for the attack. Abu Zaid was shot and killed by Jordanian security officers, press reports said at the time.
Fields' and Creach's families sought damages from Twitter under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act. Both Orrick and the Ninth Circuit said the families were unable to demonstrate any causal relationship between the shootings and ISIS's statements on Twitter, and any complicity on Twitter's part.
“Communication services and equipment are highly interconnected in modern economic and social life, such that the provision of these services and equipment could be expected to cause ripples to flow far beyond the defendant's misconduct,” Smith said.
“Nothing … indicates that Congress intended to provide a remedy to any person reached by these ripples,” Smith added. “Moreover, we are troubled by the seemingly boundless litigation risk that would be posed by extending ATA's bounds as far as foreseeability may reach.”
The attorney for the families, Joshua Arisohn, said in a statement that an appeal of the ruling is being considered.
“Here, Twitter knowingly provided social media accounts to ISIS and ISIS used those accounts to recruit thousands of new members,” said Arisohn, of the New York office of Bursor & Fisher.
ISIS, Arisohn said, used its Twitter accounts to “amass the resources” needed to carry out the attack that led to the deaths of Fields and Creach.
“Requiring a more direct connection between the provision of material support to terrorists and the attacks they carry out contravenes the central purpose of the Anti-Terrorism Act: holding enablers of terrorists accountable,” Arisohn said.
Twitter retained former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, now with the Washington office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. He did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJustices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
Judge to Hear Arguments on Whether Google's Advertising Tech Constitutes a Monopoly
3 minute readSEC Targets Rising Crypto Financier in $115 Million Securities Fraud
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
- 2Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 3$1.9M Settlement Approved in Class Suit Over Vacant Property Fees
- 4Former Wamco Exec Charged With $600M 'Cherry-Picking' Fraud
- 5Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250