Two recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit demonstrate the court’s increasing hesitation to apply U.S. law to foreign jurisdictions. In Waldman v. PLO, Nos. 15-3135-cv, 15-3151-cv, 2016 WL 4537369 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 2016, and In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-4791-cv, 2016 WL 5017312 (2d Cir. Sept. 20, 2016), the court relied upon recent Supreme Court jurisprudence to continue the trend of narrowing the extension of U.S. law to foreign jurisdictions. In each case, the court vacated a nine-figure jury award, relying on jurisdictional precedents and international comity to limit the reach and application of U.S. law.
‘Waldman v. PLO’
In Waldman, the Second Circuit held that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) for claims brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for various terror attacks in Israel between 2002 and 2004 that killed or wounded the American plaintiffs or their family members. The district court had reached a different conclusion, holding that the activities of the PLO’s mission in Washington, D.C.—which consisted of maintaining an office in Washington, promoting the Palestinian cause in speeches and media appearances, and retaining a lobbying firm—provided “a sufficient basis to exercise general jurisdiction over the defendants.”
