Fuld v. The Palestine Liberation Organization
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-03374
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Fuld v. The Palestine Liberation Organization, Judge Furman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and closed the case.
The plaintiffs, including Miriam Fuld, and the Palestine Liberation Organization and the other defendants were affected by the court’s ruling. The case was closed after the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
What happened
In Fuld v. The Palestine Liberation Organization, the plaintiffs sought justice for Ari Fuld and on their own behalf after his killing, which the court described as horrific and their efforts as morally compelling.
The defendants argued that the federal court lacked personal jurisdiction—the authority to exercise power over the defendants in this case. The court agreed that exercising jurisdiction would exceed the limits imposed by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.
Judge Furman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court did not address the defendants’ other arguments for dismissal, and the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Fuld v. The Palestine Liberation Organization · No. 1:20-cv-03374
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Miriam Fuld and the other plaintiffs brought this action against the Palestine Liberation Organization and other defendants. The judgment states that Ari Fuld’s killing was “unquestionably horrific” and that the plaintiffs’ efforts to seek justice for him and on their own behalf were morally compelling.
Ruling
The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning that the federal court lacked legal authority to exercise power over them in this case. The court concluded that exercising jurisdiction would exceed the limits imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because that ruling resolved the case, the court did not reach the defendants’ other arguments for dismissal, and the case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.