Ben-Haim v. Edri
183 A.3d 252
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2018Background
- Sharon Ben‑Haim sued the Rabbinical Courts of Israel, six Israeli rabbinical judges, and a court official in New Jersey alleging aiding-and-abetting kidnapping, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from a custody/divorce dispute that was also litigated in Israel.
- A federal district court held the Rabbinical Courts of Israel are an agency or instrumentality of the Israeli government and dismissed claims against the court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA); the individual defendants’ claims were remanded to state court.
- The Israeli government requested immunity for the individual defendants; the U.S. State Department issued a Suggestion of Immunity (SOI) finding the individuals acted within the scope of their official duties and were entitled to immunity.
- The New Jersey Law Division accepted the SOI as binding and dismissed the remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiff appealed.
- The Appellate Division reviewed the legal question de novo and framed it as an issue of whether New Jersey courts are bound by a State Department SOI determining conduct-based immunity for foreign officials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Jersey courts must follow a State Department SOI granting immunity to foreign officials | Ben‑Haim: State court should independently determine common-law immunity; SOI not controlling | Defendants: Executive SOI is binding; courts must surrender jurisdiction when SOI grants immunity | Court: SOI is binding when based on finding officials acted within scope of duties for a foreign sovereign; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether alleged conduct rises to jus cogens violations so SOI is inapplicable | Ben‑Haim: Defendants aided kidnapping and committed serious abuses that defeat immunity | Defendants: Allegations concern official judicial acts, not jus cogens violations | Court: Allegations do not amount to jus cogens violations; SOI remains controlling |
| Whether international comity provides independent immunity separate from SOI | Ben‑Haim: Comity should not bar his claims | Defendants: Comity and executive determinations support dismissal | Court: Not reached separately; SOI dispositive because it found official‑capacity conduct |
| Whether plaintiff could sue on behalf of his daughter to avoid immunity defenses | Ben‑Haim: His interests aligned with daughter; he should be permitted to proceed | Defendants: Substitution does not avoid immunity because defendants acted in official capacity | Court: Permitting derivative claims would not overcome SOI; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (courts may not treat FSIA as governing individual-official immunity; State Department retains role for officials)
- Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (Executive and Legislative branches control foreign-affairs power)
- Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30 (State Department immunity determinations are binding on courts)
- Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (historical practice of seeking State Department suggestion of immunity)
- Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (suits against foreign sovereigns implicate foreign-relations concerns)
- Belhas v. Ya'Alon, 515 F.3d 1279 (definition and examples of jus cogens norms)