Tymoshenko v. Firtash

9 Citing cases

  1. In re Arab Bank, PLC Alien Tort Statute Litigation

    822 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Denying rehearing en banc

    The Court's “touch and concern” test is cryptic and has understandably divided the circuits.See Tymoshenko v. Firtash, 2013 WL 4564646, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013) (“[T]he [Supreme] Court failed to provide guidance regarding what is necessary to satisfy the ‘touch and concern’ standard.”). My colleagues voting against rehearing want clarity from an opinion that does not offer it.

  2. Doe v. Nestle U.S., Inc.

    766 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 56 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a violation of the "prohibition against slavery" gives rise to a claim under the ATS

    Id. (Alito, J., concurring) (observing that the Court's formulation of the touch and concern test “obviously leaves much unanswered”); see also Tymoshenko v. Firtash, 2013 WL 4564646, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.28, 2013) (“[T]he Court failed to provide guidance regarding what is necessary to satisfy the ‘touch and concern’ standard.”).

  3. Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

    66 F. Supp. 3d 1239 (N.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Kiobel); Mamani v. Berzaín, 21 F.Supp.3d 1353, 2014 WL 2069491 (S.D.Fl. May 20, 2014) (dismissing ATS claims because all relevant action took place in Bolivia); Ben–Haim v. Neeman, 543 Fed.Appx. 152, 155 (3d Cir.2013) (affirming dismissal of ATS claims because alleged tortious conduct “took place in Israel”) (per curiam); Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran, 961 F.Supp.2d 185, 205 (D.D.C.2013) (barring ATS claims based on “actions that took place in Israel and Lebanon”); Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 947 F.Supp.2d 48, 71 (D.D.C. 2013) (dismissing ATS claims where alleged tortious conduct “occurred entirely within the sovereign territory of Iran”); Chen Gang v. Zhao Zhizhen, No. 04–cv–1 146–RNC, 2013 WL 5313411, at *3 (D.Conn. Sept. 20, 2013) (dismissing ATS case as “paradigmatic ‘foreign cubed’ case” involving “foreign defendant, foreign plaintiff, and exclusively foreign conduct,” because parties were present in China and all relevant conduct occurred in China); Tymoshenko v. Firtash, No. 11–cv–2794 (KMW), 2013 WL 4564646, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013) (dismissing ATS claims as “impermissibly extraterritorial” where plaintiffs were foreigners, defendant was foreign corporation, and alleged tortious conduct occurred on foreign soil); Muntslag v. Beerens, No. 12–cv–07168 (TPG), 2013 WL 4519669, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2013) (“Simply put, the conduct plaintiff alleges clearly occurred overseas and it is therefore not covered by the ATS.”); Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, No. 09–cv–1237, 2013 WL 4511354, at *7 (S.D.Tex. Aug. 23, 2013) (“Since all relevant conduct by [the defendants] occurred outside of the United States, summary judgment on Plaintiffs' ATS claim must be granted for [the defendants].”); Hua Chen v. Honghui Shi, No. 09–cv–8920 (RJS), 2013 WL 3963735, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2013) (dismissing ATS claims brought by members of Falun Gong movement residing in United States against Chinese government official because “all of the abuses took place in China”).

  4. Mamani v. Berzaín

    Case No. 07-22459-CIV-COHN (S.D. Fla. May. 20, 2014)

    imler AG, 727 F.3d 174, 189 (2d Cir. 2013) (interpreting Kiobel as "bright-line" barring ATS claims based on entirely extraterritorial conduct); Ben-Haim v. Neeman, 543 Fed. App'x 152, 155 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2013) (affirming dismissal of ATS claims because alleged tortious conduct "took place in Israel") (per curiam); Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran, 961 F. Supp. 2d 185, 205 (D.D.C. 2013) (barring ATS claims based on "actions that took place in Israel and Lebanon"); Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 947 F. Supp. 2d 48, 71 (D.D.C. 2013) (dismissing ATS claims where alleged tortious conduct "occurred entirely within the sovereign territory of Iran"); Chen Gang v. Zhao Zhizhen, No. 04-cv-1146-RNC, 2013 WL 5313411, at *3 (D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2013) (dismissing ATS case as "paradigmatic 'foreign cubed' case" involving "foreign defendant, foreign plaintiff, and exclusively foreign conduct," because parties were present in China and all relevant conduct occurred in China); Tymoshenko v. Firtash, No. 11-cv-2794 (KMW), 2013 WL 4564646, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013) (dismissing ATS claims as "impermissibly extraterritorial" where plaintiffs were foreigners, defendant was foreign corporation, and alleged tortious conduct occurred on foreign soil); Muntslag v. Beerens, No. 12-cv-07168 (TPG), 2013 WL 4519669, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2013) ("Simply put, the conduct plaintiff alleges clearly occurred overseas and it is therefore not covered by the ATS."); Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, No. 09-cv-1237, 2013 WL 4511354, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2013) ("Since all relevant conduct by [the defendants] occurred outside of the United States, summary judgment on Plaintiffs' ATS claim must be granted for [the defendants]."); Hua Chen v. Honghui Shi, No. 09-cv-8920 (RJS), 2013 WL 3963735, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2013) (dismissing ATS claims brought by members of Falun Gong movement residing in United States against Chinese government official because "all of the abuses took place in China"). A few courts, on the other hand, have sustained ATS claims as "touch

  5. Mamani v. Berzaín

    21 F. Supp. 3d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2014)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that ATS claims against defendants residing in the United States were barred because all conduct relevant to claims “occurred on foreign soil”

    lso Balintulo v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174, 189 (2d Cir.2013) (interpreting Kiobel as “bright-line” barring ATS claims based on entirely extraterritorial conduct); Ben–Haim v. Neeman, 543 Fed.Appx. 152, 155 (3d Cir.2013) (affirming dismissal of ATS claims because alleged tortious conduct “took place in Israel”) (per curiam); Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran, 961 F.Supp.2d 185, 205 (D.D.C.2013) (barring ATS claims based on “actions that took place in Israel and Lebanon”); Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 947 F.Supp.2d 48, 71 (D.D.C.2013) (dismissing ATS claims where alleged tortious conduct “occurred entirely within the sovereign territory of Iran”); Chen Gang v. Zhao Zhizhen, No. 04–cv–1146–RNC, 2013 WL 5313411, at *3 (D.Conn. Sept. 20, 2013) (dismissing ATS case as “paradigmatic ‘foreign cubed’ case” involving “foreign defendant, foreign plaintiff, and exclusively foreign conduct,” because parties were present in China and all relevant conduct occurred in China); Tymoshenko v. Firtash, No. 11–cv–2794 (KMW), 2013 WL 4564646, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013) (dismissing ATS claims as “impermissibly extraterritorial” where plaintiffs were foreigners, defendant was foreign corporation, and alleged tortious conduct occurred on foreign soil); Muntslag v. Beerens, No. 12–cv–07168 (TPG), 2013 WL 4519669, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2013) (“Simply put, the conduct plaintiff alleges clearly occurred overseas and it is therefore not covered by the ATS.”);

  6. Ahmad v. Christian Friends of Israeli Cmtys.

    13 Civ. 3376 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. May. 5, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Nevertheless, the Second Circuit's holding regarding corporate liability under the ATS remains binding on this Court, and the Supreme Court's remark that "mere corporate presence" in the United States would not displace the presumption against extraterritoriality, id. at 1669, does not suggest otherwise. See Tymoshenko v. Firtash, No. 11 Civ. 2794 (KMW), 2013 WL 4564646, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013) (rejecting that very argument because "[t]his Court is bound by the Second Circuit decision unless and until the Supreme Court or an en banc panel of the Second Circuit unambiguously rejects its rationale"). Here, all Defendants are corporations or corporate-type entities.

  7. Sikhs for Justice Inc. v. Indian Nat'l Cong. Party

    17 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding that Kiobel presumption was not displaced even though defendant conducted ongoing business in United States, established subsidiary here "as a safe harbor to escape justice," and continued to direct its "campaign of terror" at "those plaintiffs who have sought refuge in the United States"

    Id. at 56, n. 2. In Tymoshenko v. Firtash, 2013 WL 4564646 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013), the court agreed with Judge Cabranes, concluding the following: Plaintiffs suggest that, because the Supreme Court did not expressly foreclose corporate liability, their ATS claim against [defendant corporation] may proceed.

  8. Ntsebeza v. Ford Motor Co. (In re S. African Apartheid Litig.)

    02 Civ. 6218 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2014)

    On February 24, 2014, a court in the District of Maryland noted that it "harbors doubt that corporations are immune under the ATS [following Kiobel II]" but "refrain[ed] from addressing the issue" because there were other grounds for dismissal. See Tymoshenko v. Firtash, No. 11 Civ. 2794, 2013 WL 4564646, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013). Id.

  9. In re S. African Apartheid Litig.

    15 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 13 times

    On February 24, 2014, a court in the District of Maryland noted that it “harbors doubt that corporations are immune under the ATS [following Kiobel II ]” but “refrain[ed] from addressing the issue” because there were other grounds for dismissal.See Tymoshenko v. Firtash, No. 11 Civ. 2794, 2013 WL 4564646, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013).Id.