919 F.3d 709
2d Cir.2019Background
- Four plaintiffs (Eliahu, Newman, Weisskopf, Gidon) sued Israeli government officials, nine charitable organizations, and three individuals, claiming misconduct arising from Israeli divorce and child-support enforcement proceedings.
- Plaintiffs alleged officials created fictitious debts and impeded payment, and that charities aided ex-wives in collecting child support, causing injury to plaintiffs in the U.S.
- District court dismissed claims against Israeli Officials on sovereign/official immunity grounds and dismissed remaining claims for failure to state RICO, extortion, and mail-fraud causes of action.
- Plaintiffs appealed dismissal and, additionally, Weisskopf and Eliahu appealed an injunction barring them from filing related future federal suits without district-court permission.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal (jurisdictional immunity and Rule 12(b)(6) deficiencies) and affirmed the anti-filing injunction against Weisskopf and Eliahu.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Israeli Officials are subject to suit in U.S. courts | Officials acted improperly and therefore are not immune | Officials acted in their official capacities and are immune from suit | Officials entitled to foreign official immunity; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether RICO claim satisfies domestic-injury and predicate-act requirements | Plaintiffs suffered injuries (personal and business) from defendants’ scheme in the U.S. | Alleged injuries are personal or not sufficiently connected to domestic property/financial interests; predicates not pleaded/tethered | RICO claims dismissed: personal injuries not cognizable; alleged business injuries lack requisite domestic nexus; predicates insufficient |
| Whether private causes of action exist for extortion, mail fraud, and aiding/abetting RICO | Plaintiffs assert extortion, mail fraud, and aiding/abetting claims against defendants | Defendants: no private right of action exists under cited federal statutes; aiding/abetting RICO not recognized | No private cause of action for federal extortion or the cited mail-fraud provisions; no civil aiding-and-abetting RICO claim here; claims dismissed |
| Whether district court abused discretion in imposing anti-filing injunction | Plaintiffs argued injunction improper | Defendants pointed to plaintiffs’ history of repetitive, meritless litigation and burdens on courts/parties | Injunction affirmed: factors (vexatious litigation history, lack of objective good-faith, cost/burden, counsel involvement, inadequacy of other sanctions) support restriction |
Key Cases Cited
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (standards for Rule 12(b)(1) review)
- Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1897) (recognizing immunity of foreign officials for acts in their own state)
- Matar v. Dichter, 563 F.3d 9 (2d Cir. 2009) (foreign-official immunity principles)
- Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1949) (distinguishing official acts protected by sovereign immunity)
- Bascunan v. Elsaca, 874 F.3d 806 (2d Cir. 2017) (civil RICO requires injury to business or property)
- Iwachiw v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525 (2d Cir. 2005) (factors for anti-filing injunction analysis)
- Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (considerations for enjoining vexatious litigants)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (limits of pro se solicitude for frivolous filings)