Sokolow Litigation

Sokolow et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al., 04-CV-00397 (S.D.N.Y, filed 16 Jan 2004).

Lawsuit seeking up to $3 billion in damages by victims and their families for death and injury resulting from suicide bombings and shooting attacks perpetrated by operatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), between January 2001 and February 2004. The case, first filed in 2004, has been up and down the federal courts, including twice in the U.S. Supreme Court. A jury, after trial in 2015, awarded $218.5 million in damages, trebled by the Court in accordance with the law. However, the Second Circuit reversed on jurisdictional grounds. Subsequently, the Supreme Court remanded for further consideration in light of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019. Most recently, the District Court ruled that the statute applies to the case but that it is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs sought review in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Court declined to further consider the case.

The litigation is not yet at an end, but what will stand unchallenged is the historic, unanimous verdict by a twelve-member jury, finding after trial that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO had orchestrated numerous terror attacks against innocent civilians in Israel, resulting in death and severe injury.

  • Docket – Southern District of New York, 04-cv-00397
  • Docket – Southern District of New York, 18-cv-12213
  • Docket – Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 15-3135
  • Docket – Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 15-3151
  • Docket – Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 22-1060
  • Docket – U.S. Supreme Court, 16-1071
  • Docket – U.S. Supreme Court, 19-764
  • Docket – U.S. Supreme Court, 24-20
  • Docket – U.S. Supreme Court, 24-151

Litigation Chronology

2004
16 Jan 2004

Plaintiffs file Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

2005
23 May 2005

First Amended Complaint filed.

2008
30 Sep 2008

Court issues Memorandum Decision and Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss (based on subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim).

2011
30 Mar 2011

Court issues Memorandum Decision and Opinion denying defendants’ new motion to dismiss (personal jurisdiction).

2014
16 Jun 2014

Court issues Order denying defendants’ motion to reconsider denial of its earlier motion to dismiss (personal jurisdiction).

19 Nov 2014

Court issues Order denying in part and granting in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

1 Dec 2014

Court issues Memorandum Decision and Order denying defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissal (personal jurisdiction).

2015
14 Jan to 23 Feb 2015

Jury trial begins with opening statements presented on January 14, 2015. On February 23, at conclusion of the trial, the Manhattan jury found the Palestinian Authority and the PLO responsible for supporting the terror attacks, awarding the plaintiffs $218.5 million in damages.

24 Aug 2015

Court issues Order denying defendants’ post-trial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively, for judgment as a matter of law or new trial.

1 Oct 2015

The Court issues Judgment against defendants in the amount of the total jury verdict of $218.5 million, trebled automatically pursuant to the Antiterrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), for a total award of $655.5 million.

2016
31 Aug 2016

Second Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the ruling of the District Court, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and remanding to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

2018
3 Oct 2018

Enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-253).  The Act amended federal criminal law by, among other things, allowing federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign non-state defendant that accepts benefits from the United States (e.g., foreign assistance).  In response, the Palestinian Authority renounces all financial assistance from the United States in order to avoid liability for US court decisions demanding millions in payment for terrorist attacks.

27 Dec 2018

Plaintiffs commence a parallel lawsuit involving the same terror attacks in Israel, filing their complaint in the District Court.  The case was stayed and placed on the suspense docket on 16 Sep 2019.

2019
3 Jun 2019

Second Circuit Court of Appeals denies plaintiffs’ motion to recall the mandate it issued, holding again that the federal courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

20 Dec 2019

Enactment of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (§ 903 of P.L. 116-94). This law expanded federal court jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in civil claims by Americans injured or killed by international acts of terrorism that were sponsored by the PA or the PLO.  As stated by co-sponsors of the law in their amici brief, it was enacted in direct response to court rulings—including the one by the court of appeals in the Sokolow case.

2020
27 Apr 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court, in response to plaintiffs’ new Petition for Certiorari, remands the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019.

8 Sep 2020

The Court of Appeals, following instructions from the Supreme Court, issues a Mandate remanding the case to the District Court for the limited purposes of determining (1) the applicability of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 to the case, and (2), if the Act is determined to apply, any issues regarding its application to the case including its constitutionality.

2022
10 Mar 2022

The District Court issues a Memorandum Decision and Order concluding that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 is applicable to the case, but that the statute is unconstitutional.

24 Mar 2022

The District Court having rendered its decision, the Court of Appeals issues an Order recalling the mandate and reinstating the appeal.

15 Jun 2022

The District Court issues a Memorandum Decision and Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.

2023
8 Sep 2023

Second Circuit Court of Appeals declines further consideration of the case.

2024
10 May 2024

Second Circuit Court of Appeals denies plaintiffs’ petition for a rehearing en banc.

3 July 2024

Plaintiffs seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court of both the Sokolow and Fuld 2nd Circuit rulings.

Further Reading:

 
22501 22471 22473 22475 22477 22010 19746 12923 16412 21761 13306 16341 16373 16476 16211 21029 20430 16305 19158 17169 18337 11874 18174 18140 17884 16320 17866 17490 17813 7062 7066 7073 9354 9374 9393 17725 17689 17683 17634 15552 16519 16512 16505 16500 16490 16230 16271 16173 16336 16217 16197 16449 16380 16245 16361 16153 16161 16168 16180 16160 16224 16235 16256 16259 16277 16283 16291 16325 15701 15407 15418 15153 14582