Fuld v. The Palestine Liberation Organization

Background

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(2) concerns whether the court has personal jurisdiction, meaning authority over the defendants. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint adequately states a legally valid claim.

The personal-jurisdiction question turned on the possible application, and possibly the constitutionality, of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019. Similar issues were being litigated in related proceedings before another judge. The defendants asked the court either to defer ruling on personal jurisdiction until after those proceedings and a possible Second Circuit decision, to proceed directly to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, or to deny the personal-jurisdiction portion of their motion without prejudice to renewing it later.

Court's Reasoning

The court declined those requests. It relied on the general rule that a federal court ordinarily must determine both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction before deciding the merits of a case. The court explained that it could not assume personal jurisdiction merely to decide whether the complaint stated a valid claim.

The court acknowledged an exception for some cases involving multiple defendants when the court unquestionably has personal jurisdiction over at least some defendants and all defendants challenge the legal sufficiency of the claim. It concluded that this case did not fall within that exception. The court therefore would not proceed directly to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion while leaving personal jurisdiction unresolved.

Order and Next Steps

The court did not decide the substance of the Rule 12(b)(2) motion or the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Instead, it scheduled a telephone conference for May 5, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. The conference was to address whether new or supplemental briefing was appropriate, whether the court was required to notify the Attorney General and allow the United States to participate if the constitutionality of a federal law was questioned, whether additional memoranda on personal jurisdiction should be required, and whether the defendants conceded that a factual condition in 18 U.S.C. § 2334(e) had been satisfied. The opinion states that members of the press and public could listen but could not speak. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order.