Tort: Suit over alleged aiding and abetting of Hamas is dismissed

Where organizations and individuals were sued for aiding and abetting Hamas, but the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over some claims and the remaining claims failed to state a claim as a matter of law, the suit was dismissed.

Background

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleges defendants have aided and abetted Hamas, a terrorist organization, in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, or ATA, and the Alien Tort Statute, or ATS. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss.

Personal jurisdiction

Whether the ATA confers nationwide service of process and therefore personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(1)(C) is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Nonetheless, various courts have found that § 2334(a) is a nationwide-service-of-process provision that “provides personal jurisdiction over defendants who are properly served anywhere in the United States.” Those decisions are well-founded and the court adopts their reasoning.

The court must still determine whether its exercise of personal jurisdiction here comports with due process. As such, plaintiffs can make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over defendants with respect to the ATA claims if (1) they have minimum contacts with the United States as a whole and (2) they were properly served.

Defendants WESPAC Foundation Inc., National Students for Justice in Palestine, or NSJP, Zarefah Baroud and Taher Herzallah do not argue that service was defective. Defendant Hatem Bazian, however, argues that the summons was defective because it lists the address of American Muslims for Palestine, or AMP, and not the California address at which service of process was attempted. Given that Bazian received notice and has appeared, the fact that his summons listed an incorrect address did not prejudice him and does not render the service of process defective here

Bazian next argues that leaving the summons and complaint with his wife was insufficient because he lives in California, and California law requires personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served. Plaintiffs correctly respond that service is proper under both Virginia law, the venue of this court and the application of Rule 4(e)(2)(B).

With respect to the Israeli plaintiffs’ ATS claims, Bazian, WESPAC, Herzallah, Baroud and NSJP argue that the ATA’s nationwide service-of-process provision does not apply (as their claims do not arise under that statute), and that, as a result, this court lacks personal jurisdiction with respect to those claims. Plaintiffs counter that this court has pendent personal jurisdiction with respect to the ATS claims because they arise out of the same facts as the ATA claims. The court agrees with plaintiffs.

Subject matter jurisdiction

Defendants next argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Israeli plaintiffs’ ATS claims. The court agrees. Plaintiffs failed to plead facts to overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS.

Although plaintiffs allege domestic conduct, almost all of their specific allegations relate to conduct that occurred after Oct. 7, 2023. Thus, they fail to show how this domestic conduct is “relevant”—that is, that it assisted Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack or any subsequent violations of international law upon which plaintiffs could premise their claims here. Accordingly, the presumption against extraterritoriality bars this court from exercising jurisdiction over these claims, and the motions to dismiss will be granted as to the ATS claims.

ATA

To plausibly assert a claim for aiding and abetting liability under § 2333(d)(2), a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant knowingly provided substantial assistance to a foreign terrorist organization, (2) that the foreign terrorist organization committed an act of international terrorism and (3) that plaintiff was injured in their person, property or business by the act of international terrorism. Here, the allegations fall short of showing that defendants gave knowing and substantial assistance to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack under the relevant framework.

Plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient facts showing a “definable nexus” between defendants’ conduct and Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack or subsequent international law violations. Even assuming plaintiffs have alleged an attenuated nexus, plaintiffs have not shown “intentional aid that substantially furthered the tort.” Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege even prior knowledge of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, much less intentional aid that substantially furthered the tort.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss granted.

Parizer v. AJP Educational Foundation Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-724, Aug. 15, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 025-3-336. 48 pp.