Opinion
No. 19-865(L) No. 19-1285(XAP)
04-07-2021
For Strauss Appellants: PETER RAVEN-HANSEN, Hackensack, New Jersey (Gary M. Osen, Ari Ungar, Michael Radine, Aaron Schlanger, Osen, Hackensack, New Jersey; Steven M. Steingard, Stephen H. Schwartz, Kohn, Swift & Graf, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Shawn P. Naunton, Zuckerman Spaeder, New York, New York; C. Tab Turner, Turner & Associates, North Little Rock, Arkansas, on the brief). For Wolf Appellants: FLEISCHMAN BONNER & ROCCO, New York, New York (James P. Bonner, Patrick L. Rocco, Susan M. Davies, New York, New York, of counsel; Richard D. Heideman, Noel J. Nudelman, Tracy R. Kalik, Heideman Nudelman & Kalik, Washington, D.C., of counsel). For Appellee: JONATHAN I. BLACKMAN, New York, New York (Mark E. McDonald, Katherine R. Lynch, Rathna Ramamurthi, New York, New York, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, on the brief). For Amici Curiae, in support of Appellee: MAYER BROWN, Washington D.C. (Andrew J. Pincus, Alex C. Lakatos, Marc R. Cohen, of counsel), for Institute of International Bankers, European Banking Federation, and French Banking Federation.
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 7th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE, DENNIS JACOBS, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges. For Strauss Appellants: PETER RAVEN-HANSEN, Hackensack, New Jersey (Gary M. Osen, Ari Ungar, Michael Radine, Aaron Schlanger, Osen, Hackensack, New Jersey; Steven M. Steingard, Stephen H. Schwartz, Kohn, Swift & Graf, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Shawn P. Naunton, Zuckerman Spaeder, New York, New York; C. Tab Turner, Turner & Associates, North Little Rock, Arkansas, on the brief). For Wolf Appellants: FLEISCHMAN BONNER & ROCCO, New York, New York (James P. Bonner, Patrick L. Rocco, Susan M. Davies, New York, New York, of counsel; Richard D. Heideman, Noel J. Nudelman, Tracy R. Kalik, Heideman Nudelman & Kalik, Washington, D.C., of counsel). For Appellee: JONATHAN I. BLACKMAN, New York, New York (Mark E. McDonald, Katherine R. Lynch, Rathna Ramamurthi, New York, New York, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, on the brief). For Amici Curiae, in support of Appellee: MAYER BROWN, Washington D.C. (Andrew J. Pincus, Alex C. Lakatos, Marc R. Cohen, of counsel), for Institute of International Bankers, European Banking Federation, and French Banking Federation.
Appeal and cross-appeal from a March 31, 2019 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was argued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed; the cross-appeal is dismissed as moot.
Plaintiffs Moses Strauss, et al., and Estate of Bernice Wolf, et al., who were injured, or represent persons who were injured, in terrorist attacks in Israel and Palestine in 2001-2004, allegedly committed by Hamas, jointly appeal from a March 31, 2019 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in these consolidated actions, Dora L. Irizarry, then-Chief Judge, (A) dismissing the complaints seeking damages against defendant Crédit Lyonnais, S.A. ("CL"), under the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 ("ATA"), see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2333(a), 2331(1), and 2339B, for providing banking services to a charitable organization that allegedly had ties to Hamas; and (B) denying leave to amend the complaints to allege aiding-and-abetting claims against CL under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act ("JASTA"), see id. § 2333(d). The district court granted CL's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints, relying principally on this Court's decision in Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 882 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2018), and concluding that plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence sufficient to permit an inference that CL had committed an act involving violence, danger to human life, or an appearance of intent to intimidate or coerce a population or a government--elements of an international terrorism claim under the ATA. The court also denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint to allege that CL is liable for the attacks as an aider and abetter, concluding that, given the record on the summary judgment motion, such an amendment would be futile. See Strauss v. Crédit Lyonnais, S.A., 379 F.Supp.3d 148 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).
On appeal, plaintiffs argue principally that the district court erred by misapplying Linde and concluding that plaintiffs' evidence of CL's violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B was insufficient to permit inferences either that CL itself engaged in terrorist activity or that it had the requisite state of mind to make it liable for aiding and abetting that activity. In its cross-appeal, CL argues that if we do not affirm the judgment of the district court, we should reverse that court's denial of CL's motion to dismiss the actions for lack of personal jurisdiction; however, CL urges that "[g]iven the number of years during which these cases have already been pending, this Court can and should 'assume jurisdiction' and affirm on the . . . merits . . . as a means of preventing waste of judicial resources." (CL brief on appeal at 61-62 (other internal quotation marks omitted).)
This appeal was argued in tandem with the appeal in Weiss v. National Westminster Bank PLC, Nos. 19-863, -1159, which we have decided today in a published opinion, see --- F.3d --- (2d Cir. 2021) ("Weiss"). Although CL is not the defendant against which the Weiss actions were brought, both sets of actions were commenced in the mid-2000's asserting ATA claims premised on international terrorist attacks attributed to Hamas; the actions proceeded largely along parallel lines (sometimes with coordinated pretrial discovery proceedings), involved the same legal issues, and were dismissed by the same district judge in opinions filed on the same day, with the opinion in the present case frequently citing past decisions and reasoning in the Weiss actions.
The issues in these two sets of actions were the same; the issues in both appeals are the same; the arguments made by both sets of appellants are the same; and the two appellees pursue virtually identical conditional cross-appeals. We conclude, for the reasons discussed in Weiss, that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment dismissing the Strauss and Wolf plaintiffs' complaints under the ATA or in denying their request for leave to amend in order to bring claims under JASTA. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court; CL's cross-appeal is thus moot.
We have considered all of plaintiffs' arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed; the cross-appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court