Livnat v. Palestinian Authority
82 F. Supp. 3d 19
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiffs sue the Palestinian Authority under the Anti-Terrorism Act for a 2011 attack at Joseph's Tomb near Nablus injuring two and killing Ben-Yosef Livnat; they also claim emotional distress for Yisrael Safra.
- PA security forces allegedly fired at worshippers; Saabneh and Hamed fired at vehicles, injuring plaintiffs and killing Livnat.
- Plaintiffs plead vicarious liability and aiding-and-abetting theories under ATA §2333(a) and also assert Israeli-law claims for assault, battery, and negligence.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (personal jurisdiction), 12(b)(3) (venue), 12(b)(5) (service), and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim); plaintiffs cross-move for jurisdictional discovery.
- Court grants PA’s 12(b)(2) motion, denies discovery, and dismisses all claims for lack of personal jurisdiction; no jurisdictional discovery is warranted; action dismissed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority | Safra argues sufficient U.S. contacts support jurisdiction | PA contends no general or specific jurisdiction; 4(k)(2) does not confer jurisdiction | No personal jurisdiction over PA; dismissal granted |
| Whether the PA has general jurisdiction under Daimler/Goodyear | PA has continuous contacts allowing all-purpose jurisdiction | PA is not essentially at home in the U.S.; not general jurisdiction | No general jurisdiction over PA |
| Whether the PA has specific jurisdiction over the underlying ATA/related claims | Attack tied to PA policy; connections to U.S. policy influence | Links to U.S. policy are too attenuated to connect to the specific incident | No specific jurisdiction over PA for these claims |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted | Discovery could uncover contacts tying PA to U.S. | Discovery would not reveal connections sufficient for jurisdiction | Jurisdictional discovery not warranted |
| Whether due process rights apply to PA and affect jurisdiction | PA should have Due Process rights as a non-sovereign government | Court must assess PA’s contacts with the United States; due process applies | PA has due process rights; analysis proceeds under 4(k)(2) framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction framework: at home standard; extensive contacts required)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (general jurisdiction framework; per-state paradigm for at-home analysis)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (minimum contacts focus on defendant’s forum-specific contacts, not cardholders/third parties)
- Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (2005) (pre-eminent circuit precedent applying national contacts analysis to 4(k)(2))
- GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority, 680 F.3d 805 (2012) (foreign state-owned corporations have due process rights)
- Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian Auth., 467 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2006) (district court recognizing PA due process rights)