Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:53:35.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Circuit Overturns $655 Million Jury Verdict Against Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In its August 2016 decision in Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a $655 million jury verdict against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs were individuals whose family members had been killed in terrorist attacks that took place in Jerusalem; defendants were alleged to have coordinated and carried out these attacks. While the United States government took no position on the merits of the dispute, it filed a Statement of Interest in the district court “[o]n the limited issue of setting a bond amount in [the] case.”

Type
State Jurisdiction and Immunity
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 504 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 835 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2016).

2 Id. at 324–25.

3 Declaration of Antony J. Blinken, attached to the Statement of Interest of the United States of America, at 3, Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization, No. 1:04-cv-00397-GBD-RLE (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The United States filed the Statement of Interest in response to the defendants’ Rule 62 Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment and to Waive the Bond Requirement. Although the United States did not “express a view on the ultimate merits of defendants’ Rule 62 motion (or any other issue in the case),” the statement included a declaration from Blinken raising “concerns about the harms that could arise if the Court were to impose a bond that severely compromised the Palestinian Authority's (‘PA’) ability to operate as a governmental entity.” Id. at 2, 5.

4 See generally S. Rep. 102–342 (1992).

5 Antiterrorism Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102–572, 106 Stat. 4506 (1992). For examples of other suits relying on 18 U.S.C. §2333(a), see, e.g., Strauss v. Crédit Lyonnais, S.A., 175 F.Supp.3d 3 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (finding jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to Section 2333); Linde v. Arab Bank, 384 F.Supp.2d 571 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (similar).

6 Klinghoffer v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 739 F.Supp. 854, 856 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).

7 Id. at 858–59.

8 Id. at 867.

9 136 Cong. Rec. 7592 (1990).

10 Brief for the United States as Amici Curiae Supporting Affirmance, at 13, Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, 291 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2002) (Nos. 01-1969, 01-1970).

11 Antiterrorism Act of 1990, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., at 12 (1990) (testimony of U.S. State Dep't Official Alan Kreczko).

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id. at 83 (testimony of Joseph A. Morris).

15 Id. at 136.

16 Brief for the United States as Amici Curiae Supporting Affirmance at 10, Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, 291 F.3d 1000.

17 First Amended Complaint, Sokolow, 2005 WL 6699189 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005).

18 Id.

19 See Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, at 24, Sokolow, 2015 WL 1231805 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2015).

20 Sokolow, 2014 WL 6811395, at *1.

21 See, e.g., Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 448–49 (1952) (holding that Ohio's exercise of general jurisdiction was consistent with the Due Process Clause); see also Judy M. Cornett & Michael H. Hoffheimer, Good-Bye Significant Contacts: General Personal Jurisdiction After Daimler AG v. Bauman, 76 Ohio St. L.J. 101, 111–16 (2015).

22 Id. at 104 (“Daimler further signals that, except for truly exceptional circumstances, a corporation is ‘at home’ only in its states of incorporation and principal place of business.”).

23 Sokolow, 2014 WL 6811395, at *2.

24 Id.

25 See id. at *2 (holding that the district court could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants).

26 Judgment, Sokolow, 2015 WL 10852003 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2015).

27 Jury Verdict Form, Sokolow, No. 1:04-cv-00397-GBD-RLE (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015).

28 Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment and to Waive the Bond Requirement, Sokolow, No. 1:04-cv-00397-GBD-RLE (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2015).

29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a), (d).

30 See generally Timothy S. Bishop, Joshua D. Yount & J. Bishop Grewell, Protecting Your Assets During Appeal, For the Defense (Jan. 2012), available at https://m.mayerbrown.com/Files/News/0baf2446-4081-4788-bf04-9e76628439bc/Presentation/NewsAttachment/08e3de60-eda9-404b-a503-9f31ba1796a5/12094.pdf.

31 Declaration of Antony J. Blinken, attached to the Statement of Interest of the United States of America, at 3, Sokolow, No. 1:04-cv-00397-GBD-RLE (Aug. 10, 2015).

32 Id.

33 Order, Sokolow, No. 1:04-cv-00397-GBD-RLE (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2015).

34 Waldman, 835 F.3d at 328.

35 Id. at 332.

36 Id. at 332–33.

37 Id. at 335.

38 Id. at 337.

39 Id. at 337–41.

40 Id. at 337.

41 Id.

42 Id. at 341–43.

43 Id. at 343.

44 Id.

45 Id. at 344.

46 Benjamin Weiser, Court Throws Out $655.5 Million Terrorism Verdict Against Palestinian Groups, N.Y. Times (Aug. 31, 2016), at https:// www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/nyregion/appeals-court-terror-verdict-plo-palestinian-authority.html.

47 Id.

48 Jonathan Stempel, U.S. Court Voids $655 Million Verdict Against PLO over Israel Attacks, Reuters (Aug. 31, 2016), at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-decision-idUSKCN1161UU.

49 Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center, Official Reactions to the Landmark Court Ruling in Sokolow v. Palestinian Authority (Feb. 25, 2015), at http://israellawcenter.org/pr/official-reactions-to-the-landmark-court-ruling-in-sokolow-v-palestinian-authority.

50 Nicole Hong, U.S. Appeals Court Dismisses Ruling Against Palestinian Authority, PLO, Wall St. J. (Aug. 31, 2016), at http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-appeals-court-dismisses-ruling-against-palestinian-authority-plo-1472660849.