Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16089
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Eleven U.S. citizen plaintiffs sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (18 U.S.C. § 2333) for six terrorist attacks in and around Jerusalem that killed or injured Americans.
- Plaintiffs proceeded in the Southern District of New York; the district court found service proper (on the PLO/PA chief U.S. representative) and held it had general personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA.
- A seven-week jury trial found the PLO and PA liable (respondeat superior, material support, harboring) and awarded $218.5 million in damages, trebled under the ATA to $655.5 million.
- Defendants appealed, arguing lack of both general and specific personal jurisdiction; they also sought a new trial on other grounds. Plaintiffs cross‑appealed to revive dismissed claims.
- The Second Circuit held that under Daimler and related due-process precedent the district court lacked general jurisdiction and that specific jurisdiction likewise did not exist because the tortious conduct occurred abroad and was not expressly aimed at the U.S.; the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction | PLO/PA maintained a continuous & systematic U.S. presence (D.C. mission, bank accounts, lobbying), so NY federal court may exercise general jurisdiction | Contacts with U.S. were insufficient; defendants are "at home" in Palestine (headquarters/governance), not the U.S. | No general jurisdiction: Daimler "at-home" test controls; contacts insufficient and not an "exceptional" Perkins-type case => dismissal. |
| Specific jurisdiction | ATA plaintiffs (U.S. citizens harmed) + defendants' U.S. activities and material support to FTOs establish suit-related contacts and purposeful availment / effects on U.S. | Attacks and supporting conduct occurred in Israel/Palestine; harms to U.S. citizens were random/fortuitous and not expressly aimed at the U.S.; D.C. mission/lobbying not suit-related | No specific jurisdiction: Walden requires defendant-created forum connection; harm foreseeability or victims' U.S. citizenship is insufficient. |
| Effect of statutory service (18 U.S.C. § 2334 / Rule 4) | Statutory provision allowing service on U.S. representative satisfies jurisdiction | Statutory service does not relieve constitutional due-process requirement | Service was procedurally proper but does not cure lack of constitutional personal jurisdiction. |
| Whether Fifth Amendment requires a different standard than Fourteenth | Plaintiffs urged a more permissive Fifth Amendment test for federal fora | Defendants urged application of Daimler/Fourteenth principles to federal cases | Court applied same minimum-contacts test (Fifth = Fourteenth analysis under Circuit precedent) and therefore applied Daimler/Walden framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum-contacts and reasonableness framework for personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (adopts ‘‘at home’’ standard for general jurisdiction; narrow scope for general jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic as to render defendant essentially at home)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (specific-jurisdiction analysis requires defendant’s own forum-directed contacts; plaintiff’s forum connections alone insufficient)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test applies where forum is the focal point of the harm and defendants expressly aimed tortious conduct at forum)
- Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 673 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses due process and service; distinguishes effects/purposeful-availment in terrorism-related civil suits)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) (applied Daimler reasoning to entities and declined to find general jurisdiction)
- O’Neill (In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001), 714 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2013) (civil ATA suits: specific jurisdiction requires that support be expressly aimed at U.S.; foreseeability alone insufficient)