Shatsky v. The Palestine Liberation Organization

Background

The case arises from a 2002 suicide bombing in the Israeli West Bank. The plaintiffs are American victims and their families. They initially brought claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority.

The court had stayed the case in December 2018 while a similar case proceeded in the District of Columbia. In that earlier related proceeding, the district court found that it had personal jurisdiction—the power to exercise authority over the defendants—but granted summary judgment to the defendants because it found they had not proximately caused the attack. The D.C. Circuit reversed and vacated that decision, holding that the district court should have dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The D.C. Circuit also explained that the plaintiffs might be able to establish personal jurisdiction under the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA).

The parties’ requests

The defendants sought permission to file motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for summary judgment, which asks the court to resolve claims without a trial when the material facts do not require one. They argued that the case was ready for summary judgment based on the merits-focused discovery conducted in the earlier related proceeding.

The plaintiffs asked the court to postpone the defendants’ contemplated motions and allow jurisdictional discovery—information gathering directed at whether the court has power over the defendants—under the PSJVTA. They also argued that the D.C. district court had denied them some discovery.

Court’s analysis

The court declined the defendants’ invitation to avoid the personal-jurisdiction question and proceed directly to the merits. It described personal jurisdiction as a threshold issue. The court also concluded that no additional discovery beyond jurisdictional discovery was needed because this case had been stayed for two years while the parties litigated the same underlying facts in the District of Columbia through the summary-judgment stage.

Disposition

The court ordered that the plaintiffs’ request to conduct jurisdictional discovery was GRANTED. It set April 9, 2021, as the deadline to complete that discovery. It further ordered the defendants to file their contemplated dispositive motions by April 30, 2021; the plaintiffs to respond by May 14, 2021; and the defendants to reply by May 21, 2021. This order did not decide personal jurisdiction or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.