Rivka Livnat v. Palestinian Authority, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5192

Background

In 2011 three Jewish worshippers were shot at Joseph’s Tomb in the West Bank; Ben‑Yosef Livnat was killed and two U.S. citizens (Yitzhak and Natan Safra) were wounded.
Plaintiffs (Livnat and Safra families) sued the Palestinian Authority (PA) in D.C. federal court under the Antiterrorism Act and common law, alleging PA security guards carried out the attack as part of a PA practice of using terrorism to influence U.S. opinion and policy.
The PA moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs sought jurisdictional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2); the district court denied discovery as futile and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The district court held the PA was not "at home" in the U.S. (no general jurisdiction) and that plaintiffs failed to show the attack was sufficiently directed at the United States (no specific jurisdiction).
On appeal the D.C. Circuit considered whether (1) the Fifth Amendment due‑process clause limits personal jurisdiction over the PA and (2) whether Price v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya exempted the PA from those limits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause limit personal jurisdiction over the PA?	Livnat/Safra: Fifth Amendment imposes lesser limits than the Fourteenth; federal courts may balance interests and permit jurisdiction with fewer contacts.	PA: Fifth Amendment requires the same minimum‑contacts analysis as the Fourteenth Amendment; no jurisdiction here.	Held: Fifth Amendment requires the familiar minimum‑contacts/full due‑process analysis; no relaxed standard.
Is the PA excluded from due‑process protection under Price (i.e., not a "person")?	Livnat/Safra: Price should extend to any entity that functions as a government; PA should be outside due‑process protections.	PA: Price applies only to sovereign foreign states; PA is not a sovereign recognized foreign state.	Held: Price is limited to sovereign foreign states; non‑sovereign entities like the PA remain protected by the Due Process Clause.
Is there general jurisdiction over the PA in the U.S.?	Livnat/Safra: Implicitly argue PA has sufficient U.S. affiliations.	PA: Headquarters and primary activities are in the West Bank; not "at home" in U.S.	Held: No general jurisdiction; PA is not "at home" in the United States.
Is there specific jurisdiction based on alleged PA conduct aimed at influencing U.S. policy?	Livnat/Safra: The Joseph’s Tomb attack was part of a PA policy to influence U.S. public opinion and policy via terrorism; PA’s U.S. lobbying/fundraising supports jurisdiction.	PA: Plaintiffs fail to link the specific attack to PA activities directed at the U.S.; contacts alleged are general and not tied to the tort.	Held: No specific jurisdiction—plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing tying the particular attack to PA activities directed at the U.S.; district court rightly denied jurisdictional discovery.

Key Cases Cited

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits on general jurisdiction; "at home" test)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (specific jurisdiction requires defendant’s forum contacts to relate to the suit)
Price v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir.) (holding foreign sovereigns are not "persons" under Fifth Amendment for personal jurisdiction)
Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, 504 U.S. 607 (Fifth Amendment due‑process personal‑jurisdiction analysis parallels Fourteenth)
GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority, 680 F.3d 805 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing when instrumentalities of foreign sovereigns may be treated like sovereigns for due‑process purposes)
TMR Energy Ltd. v. State Property Fund of Ukraine, 411 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir.) (agency/instrumentality analysis)
Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 835 F.3d 317 (2d Cir.) (treating PA and PLO as persons under the Fifth Amendment)