Major Cases
Bennett, et al., v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Civil Action No. 03-1486 (RCL)
507 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2007)
On July 31, 2002 a bomb exploded in the crowded Frank Sinatra cafeteria in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Mt. Scopus campus shortly after 1:30 p.m. Marla Bennett, a promising young American student continuing her studies there after graduating from the University of California Berkeley, was killed along with nine others. The terrorist organization Hamas immediately took responsibility. Ms. Norman, in concert with attorneys Ron Karp and Edward Carnot, has collected a substantial portion of the $12,904,548.00 judgment awarded to the Estate of Marla Bennett and her family under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act against the Islamic Republic of Iran for aiding and abetting Hamas in carrying out the attack. Ms. Norman has been able to obtain awards not just for the direct victims of the bombing who suffered from physical injuries and emotional distress, but from close family members who also suffered from emotional distress as a result of the bombing. Efforts to collect the full amount of the judgment with post judgment interest is ongoing.
On July 31, 2002 a bomb exploded in the crowded Frank Sinatra cafeteria in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Mt. Scopus campus shortly after 1:30 p.m. Marla Bennett, a promising young American student continuing her studies there after graduating from the University of California Berkeley, was killed along with nine others. The terrorist organization Hamas immediately took responsibility. Ms. Norman, in concert with attorneys Ron Karp and Edward Carnot, has collected a substantial portion of the $12,904,548.00 judgment awarded to the Estate of Marla Bennett and her family under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act against the Islamic Republic of Iran for aiding and abetting Hamas in carrying out the attack. Ms. Norman has been able to obtain awards not just for the direct victims of the bombing who suffered from physical injuries and emotional distress, but from close family members who also suffered from emotional distress as a result of the bombing. Efforts to collect the full amount of the judgment with post judgment interest is ongoing.
Estate of Peterson et al v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Civil Action Nos. 01-2094 (RCL),
01-2684(RCL), 515 F. Supp.2d 25, (D.D.C 2007)
On October 23, 1983 at 6:22 a.m., a truck carrying 2,000 pounds of explosives drove into the Marine compound in Beirut and crashed into the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regimental Battalion Landing Team barracks. 241 US service personnel, including 220 Marines, who were there on an international peace keeping mission, were killed. Many more service members were injured, some severely so. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond, in concert with attorneys Thomas Fortune Fay and Steven Perles, helped obtain and partially collect on a 2.6 Billion Dollar judgment for a number of the victims of the Marine Barracks bombing and their families against the Islamic Republic of Iran for providing material support to Hezbollah in aid and assistance of carrying out the attack. The judgments were obtained pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Efforts to collect the full amount of the judgments with post judgment interest is ongoing.
On October 23, 1983 at 6:22 a.m., a truck carrying 2,000 pounds of explosives drove into the Marine compound in Beirut and crashed into the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regimental Battalion Landing Team barracks. 241 US service personnel, including 220 Marines, who were there on an international peace keeping mission, were killed. Many more service members were injured, some severely so. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond, in concert with attorneys Thomas Fortune Fay and Steven Perles, helped obtain and partially collect on a 2.6 Billion Dollar judgment for a number of the victims of the Marine Barracks bombing and their families against the Islamic Republic of Iran for providing material support to Hezbollah in aid and assistance of carrying out the attack. The judgments were obtained pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Efforts to collect the full amount of the judgments with post judgment interest is ongoing.
Khaliq, et al., v Republic of Sudan, et al., Civil Action No. 10-356 (JDB), 33
F.Supp.3rd 29, (D.D.C. 2014)
On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded almost simultaneously at the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and injuring about 5,000 others. The dead included 12 US citizens and hundreds of other US citizens, employees and contractors of the United States. Ms. Norman obtained a multi-million-dollar judgment on behalf of the Khaliq family against the Republic of Sudan and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Those countries were found to have been liable based upon providing material support to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in carrying out the attacks. Efforts to collect the full amount of the judgments with post judgment interest is ongoing.
On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded almost simultaneously at the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and injuring about 5,000 others. The dead included 12 US citizens and hundreds of other US citizens, employees and contractors of the United States. Ms. Norman obtained a multi-million-dollar judgment on behalf of the Khaliq family against the Republic of Sudan and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Those countries were found to have been liable based upon providing material support to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in carrying out the attacks. Efforts to collect the full amount of the judgments with post judgment interest is ongoing.
David Jones, et al., v. Prince George’s County,
et al., Case No. 98-1014 (ESH)(D.D.C.1998)
In 1997 numerous members of the Prince George’s County Police Department chased a frightened teenager over the PG County line into the District of Columbia. There, they beat him and one of the officers, unprovoked and while Mr. Jones was completely restrained on the ground, commanded her police German Shepard to attack Mr. Jones. As a result Mr. Jones suffered serious dog bites in addition to other significant physical and emotional injuries. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond successfully filed suit against the individual officers and Prince George’s County claiming that the officers used excessive force in violation of Mr. Jones’ civil rights under 42 USC §1983. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
In 1997 numerous members of the Prince George’s County Police Department chased a frightened teenager over the PG County line into the District of Columbia. There, they beat him and one of the officers, unprovoked and while Mr. Jones was completely restrained on the ground, commanded her police German Shepard to attack Mr. Jones. As a result Mr. Jones suffered serious dog bites in addition to other significant physical and emotional injuries. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond successfully filed suit against the individual officers and Prince George’s County claiming that the officers used excessive force in violation of Mr. Jones’ civil rights under 42 USC §1983. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
Lamont Andre Young v. The District of Columbia,
et al., Civil Action No. 14-2129 (BAH)
On December 27, 2013 Lamont Young was celebrating his birthday. He went to his barbershop to get a haircut but had to wait. While he was outside, members of the DC Metropolitan Police Department saw him and believed that he met the description of a suspect wanted for questioning in a domestic assault incident from the day before. Mr. Young, believing that he had done nothing wrong, started walking away refusing to be questioned. Subsequently while attempting to comply with the officer’s commands to take his hands out of his pockets and put his hands up, he was shot in the back by one of the officers sustaining serious life threatening injures for which he was hospitalized. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond filed suit against the District of Columbia and the officer claiming that the MPD officer that shot Mr. Young used excessive force in violation of Mr. Young’s civil rights under 42 USC §1983. The DC Government moved to dismiss the lawsuit against the MPD officer based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond successfully defeated this common government defense to police excessive force and were able to enter into a settlement with the District of Columbia. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
On December 27, 2013 Lamont Young was celebrating his birthday. He went to his barbershop to get a haircut but had to wait. While he was outside, members of the DC Metropolitan Police Department saw him and believed that he met the description of a suspect wanted for questioning in a domestic assault incident from the day before. Mr. Young, believing that he had done nothing wrong, started walking away refusing to be questioned. Subsequently while attempting to comply with the officer’s commands to take his hands out of his pockets and put his hands up, he was shot in the back by one of the officers sustaining serious life threatening injures for which he was hospitalized. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond filed suit against the District of Columbia and the officer claiming that the MPD officer that shot Mr. Young used excessive force in violation of Mr. Young’s civil rights under 42 USC §1983. The DC Government moved to dismiss the lawsuit against the MPD officer based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond successfully defeated this common government defense to police excessive force and were able to enter into a settlement with the District of Columbia. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
Ray Bernard Williams v. District of Columbia, et al.,
Civil Action No. 15-719 (GK), 174 F.Supp3rd 410 (D.D.C.2016)
On February 22, 2014, Ray Bernard Williams, a District of Columbia resident, lawfully entered the DC Metro Wine & Spirits liquor store. Upon getting into a dispute with one of the store employees, the employee called the DC Metropolitan Police. The police immediately placed Mr. Williams under arrest and wrestled him to the floor when he protested his innocence. While Mr. Williams was pinned down on the floor, completely immobile with his hands restrained and his face down on the ground, one of the officers struck him repeatedly on the head and body. As a result, Mr. Williams sustained a broken nose, a head contusion, and a subgaleal hematoma indicative of brain trauma. He also suffered extreme emotional distress. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond filed suit claiming that the officer who struck Mr. Williams while he was restrained used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The DC Government moved to dismiss the lawsuit against the MPD officer based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. Ms. Norman along with Mr. Bond successfully defeated this common government defense to police excessive force and were able to enter into a settlement with the District of Columbia. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
On February 22, 2014, Ray Bernard Williams, a District of Columbia resident, lawfully entered the DC Metro Wine & Spirits liquor store. Upon getting into a dispute with one of the store employees, the employee called the DC Metropolitan Police. The police immediately placed Mr. Williams under arrest and wrestled him to the floor when he protested his innocence. While Mr. Williams was pinned down on the floor, completely immobile with his hands restrained and his face down on the ground, one of the officers struck him repeatedly on the head and body. As a result, Mr. Williams sustained a broken nose, a head contusion, and a subgaleal hematoma indicative of brain trauma. He also suffered extreme emotional distress. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond filed suit claiming that the officer who struck Mr. Williams while he was restrained used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The DC Government moved to dismiss the lawsuit against the MPD officer based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. Ms. Norman along with Mr. Bond successfully defeated this common government defense to police excessive force and were able to enter into a settlement with the District of Columbia. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
James Brewer, et al, v. The District of Columbia,
et al., Civil Action No. 15-565 (RBW)
Starting on or about mid-2014 and continuing through 2015, a correctional officer at the District of Columbia Jail sexually harassed inmates James Brewer and two others by demanding that they commit lewd and indecent acts upon themselves while he watched as a condition of receiving their food. If they did not commit the acts, they were denied food. When they complained to jail authorities, they were retaliated against by having their privileges taken away. Ms. Norman successfully filed suit against the corrections officer and the District of Columbia claiming a gross violation of the inmates’ civil rights under 42 USC §1983. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
Starting on or about mid-2014 and continuing through 2015, a correctional officer at the District of Columbia Jail sexually harassed inmates James Brewer and two others by demanding that they commit lewd and indecent acts upon themselves while he watched as a condition of receiving their food. If they did not commit the acts, they were denied food. When they complained to jail authorities, they were retaliated against by having their privileges taken away. Ms. Norman successfully filed suit against the corrections officer and the District of Columbia claiming a gross violation of the inmates’ civil rights under 42 USC §1983. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
Jane C. Norman, J.D.
Ms. Norman is a partner with the District of Columbia Law Firm of Bond and Norman Law, PC.
Ms. Norman earned her Bachelor of Arts from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1972,
and her Doctor of Jurisprudence from Loyola University College of Law, Los Angeles in 1975. Ms.
Norman currently concentrates her practice on civil rights and representing the victims of
terrorism. Before going into private practice, from 1977-1981 Ms. Norman served on active duty
with the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Navy, achieving the rank of Lieutenant
Commander. From 1981-1985 Ms. Norman served as an Attorney Advisor, Office of Medico-Legal Counsel,
to the former Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Before concentrating her practice on civil
rights and representing the victims of terrorism, Ms. Norman represented criminal defendants in
drug conspiracy and other criminal cases in the United States District Courts for the District
of Columbia and Maryland. She also defended clients in a wide variety of criminal cases in the
District of Columbia Superior Court and the Circuit and District Courts of Maryland. She has
successfully litigated cases against the D.C. Detention Center for Violation of prisoner civil
rights, and against the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department for both police brutality and violation
of constitutional rights. Ms. Norman has successfully represented victims and their family members
injured in the bombing of the United States Embassy in Kenya on August 7, 1998 carried out by the
terrorist group al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Ms. Norman has successfully represented the family
of one of the victims who was killed in the July 31, 2002 terrorist bombings in the Frank Sinatra
cafeteria in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel committed by the terrorist organization
Hamas. Ms. Norman has successfully helped obtain and partially collect on a 2.6 Billion Dollar
judgment for a number of the victims of the Marine Barracks bombing and their families against
the Islamic Republic of Iran for providing material support to Hezbollah in aid and assistance of
carrying out the attack.
| Education | |
|---|---|
| Doctor of Jurisprudence | Loyola University College of Law, Los Angeles - 1975 |
| Bachelor of Arts | University of California, Los Angeles – 1972 |
| Bar Admissions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| District of Columbia | |||
| District of Columbia Court of Appeals | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia | |
| Maryland | |||
| Maryland Court of Appeals | Maryland Court of Special Appeals | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |
| California | |||
| Supreme Court of California | US District Court for the Ninth Circuit | US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Other | |||
| United States Supreme Court | United States Court of Claims | United States Court of Military Appeals |
| Professional Associations |
|---|
| American Association of Justice |
| DC Trial Lawyers Association |
| American Bar Association |