Estate of Esther Klieman v. Palestinian Authority
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25167
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Esther Klieman, a U.S. citizen, was killed in a 2002 terrorist attack in the West Bank; plaintiffs sued multiple individuals and organizations under the Antiterrorism Act and tort law, leaving only the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as defendants.
- District Court earlier (2006, 2008) held it had general personal jurisdiction over PA and PLO based on their U.S. contacts (e.g., D.C. office, speechmaking, fundraising/lobbying activities) and denied prior motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.
- After the Supreme Court decisions in Goodyear and Daimler clarified the “essentially at home” standard for general jurisdiction, PA and PLO moved for reconsideration of the Court’s prior jurisdictional rulings.
- Plaintiffs argued defendants waived jurisdictional objections, that general or alternative specific jurisdiction existed, and sought jurisdictional discovery; defendants maintained Daimler changed the law and that their U.S. activities were insufficient.
- The Court found Daimler an intervening change of law, rejected waiver, and ruled plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of either general or specific jurisdiction; jurisdictional discovery was denied as unlikely to change the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived personal-jurisdiction defense | PA/PLO had litigated jurisdiction earlier and delay after Goodyear was not waiver | Persistent objections and timely motion for reconsideration after Daimler | No waiver; reconsideration allowed |
| Whether Daimler requires reconsideration of prior rulings | Goodyear/Daimler inapplicable (Fourteenth vs Fifth) | Daimler is intervening change and applies to federal long-arm analysis | Daimler is controlling; warrants reconsideration |
| General personal jurisdiction under Daimler | PA/PLO U.S. contacts (D.C. office, speeches, PR, bank accounts) suffice as continuous/systematic contacts | U.S. contacts are minimal relative to global operations and not enough to be "essentially at home" | No general jurisdiction; contacts not so continuous/systematic as to render defendants "at home" in U.S. |
| Specific personal jurisdiction (suit-related conduct) | Terrorist attack and U.S. advocacy are motivated by same policy goals, foreseeability of harm to Americans, and alleged U.S.-directed fundraising show a connection | No causal or purposeful-direction link between suit and U.S. contacts; foreseeability alone insufficient | No specific jurisdiction; plaintiffs failed to show suit arises out of or relates to defendants' U.S. contacts |
| Request for jurisdictional discovery | Discovery could show defendants’ U.S. advocacy/fundraising linked to terrorism and establish jurisdiction | Plaintiffs offer only speculation; prior discovery and declarations show lack of U.S. fundraising | Denied; plaintiffs failed to identify plausible facts discovery would produce to alter jurisdictional analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant’s affiliations with forum to be so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (clarified the ‘‘at home’’ inquiry for general jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific-jurisdiction requires defendant’s own contacts with forum; foreseeability of plaintiff’s forum ties insufficient)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due-process framework for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles for specific jurisdiction)