Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

This appeal involved claims by families and the estates of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This opinion addressed only the claims against the 37 defendants dismissed by the district court for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court that it lacked personal jurisdiction over most of these defendants pursuant to the court's decision in In re Terrorist Attacks III, because plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show that most of these defendants expressly aimed their allegedly tortious conduct at the United States. The court concluded, however, that jurisdictional discovery was warranted with regard to 12 defendants. View "In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their action brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. 2331 et seq., against UBS, alleging that plaintiffs were direct or indirect victims of terrorist attacks in Israel facilitated by UBS's furnishing of United States currency to Iran, which the U.S. Department of State had listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. On appeal, plaintiffs contended principally that the FAC alleged a chain of causation between transfers of funds to Iran by UBS and plaintiffs' injuries at the hands of various terrorist groups sponsored by Iran, sufficient to establish traceability for purposes both of standing and of stating a claim under the ATA. The court concluded that the FAC was sufficient to show Article III standing but insufficient to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rothstein v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Petitioner (Father) brought this suit under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11603(b), seeking the return of his two minor children to Turkey, as well as an order enforcing his rights under Turkish law to visit the children as long as they stayed in the United States with their mother. The court held that the Father had demonstrated that he retained custody rights under Turkish law and that the Mother's removal of the children from Turkey in 2011 interfered with the exercise of his custody rights. With regard to visitation claims, the court held that section 11603(b) created a federal right of action to enforce "access" rights protected under the Hague Convention. With regard to costs, however, the court concluded that in light of the particular circumstances of this case, an award of full costs would be "clearly inappropriate." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's return order and vacated the costs award. View "Ozaltin v. Ozaltin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks committed in Israel between 1995-2004, brought claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. 2333, and the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350, seeking monetary damages from Arab Bank. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank provided financial services and support to terrorists during this period, facilitating the attacks. On appeal, Arab Bank challenged the district court's orders imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) for its failure to comply with several of that court's discovery-related orders, and petitioned the court under 28 U.S.C. 1651 for a writ of mandamus directing vacatur of the district court's sanctions order. The court concluded that the sanctions order was not a reviewable collateral order, and therefore dismissed Arab Bank's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court also concluded that this was not an appropriate case for issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus, since the court agreed with plaintiffs that Arab Bank had not established that it had a clear and indisputable right to such drastic relief or that review after final judgment would not provide adequate relief. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the petition for mandamus. View "Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his action against the Museum for its acquisition, possession, display, and retention of a painting that had been confiscated by the Russian Bolshevik regime from plaintiff's great-grandfather in 1918. On appeal, plaintiff contended principally that the district court erred in holding that the painting was taken pursuant to a valid act of state despite factual allegations in his Amended Complaint to the contrary. The court found that it was clear that the Amended Complaint, on its face, showed that plaintiff's action was barred by the act of state doctrine. The court considered all of plaintiff's arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Konowaloff v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art" on Justia Law

Argentina appealed from permanent injunctions entered by the district court designed to remedy Argentina's failure to pay bondholders after a default in 2001 on its sovereign debt. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and enjoined Argentina from making payments on debt issued pursuant to its 2005 and 2010 restructurings without making comparable payments on the defaulted debt. The court held that an equal treatment provision in the bonds barred Argentina from discriminating against plaintiffs' bonds in favor of bonds issued in connection with the restructurings and that Argentina violated that provision by ranking its payment obligations on the defaulted debt below its obligations to the holders of its restructured debt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court; found no abuse of discretion in the injunctive relief; and concluded that the injunction did not violate the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611. However, given the need for clarity as to how the injunctions were to function, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Two now-separated parents dispute whether courts in the United States or the United Kingdom should decide who has custody of their five-year-old child. At issue was the interpretation of Article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494. The court held that courts could not equitably toll the one-year period before a parent could raise the now settled defense available under Article 12 of the Convention, and that when making a now settled determination, courts need not give controlling weight to a child's immigration status. The court also considered and rejected petitioner's objections to the district court's findings of fact. View "Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez" on Justia Law

This case arose when an oil tanker sank off the cost of Spain, releasing large quantities of oil into the ocean. Spain subsequently appealed the district court's holding that defendants were entitled to summary judgment because, in the circumstances presented, Defendant ABS and its subsidiaries did not owe Spain a duty in tort in connection with ABS's inspection of the tanker. Without reaching that issue, the court concluded that even if such a duty were owed, Spain did not introduce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants recklessly breached the duty. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reino De Espana v. Bureau of Shipping" on Justia Law

The Republic of Argentina appealed from an order of the district court granting NML Capital's motion to compel non-parties Bank of America and Banco de la Nacion Argentina to comply with subpoenas duces tecum and denying Argentina's motion to quash the subpoena issued to Bank of America. Argentina argued that the banks' compliance with the subpoenas would infringe on its sovereign immunity. The court concluded, however, that because the district court ordered only discovery, not the attachment of sovereign property, and because that discovery was directed at third-party banks, Argentina's sovereign immunity was not affected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Mota and Castillo married in Mexico, where their daughter, Elena, was born. In 2007, when Elena was six months old, Castillo entered the U.S. illegally and began sending financial support to his wife and daughter. In 2010 Mota and Castillo decided to reunite. They hired a smuggler to take Elena across the border. After Elena had entered the U.S., Mota tried to cross the border, but was repeatedly blocked by American border guards. Meanwhile, the smugglers had transported Elena to New York, where she began living with her father. After one attempt to enter, Mota was arrested and prosecuted for use of false identification. Castillo began living with another woman, no longer sent financial support, and declared that he would keep Elena. Mexican authorities applied to the U.S. government for the child’s return. Castillo then instituted custody proceedings in New York. Having obtained no relief through official diplomatic channels, Mota filed a petition seeking an order requiring Castillo to return Elena to her in Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601. The district court granted the order. The Second Circuit affirmed. View "Mota v. Castillo" on Justia Law