Francis Gates v. Patrick Scott Baker
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11811
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Both Gates and Baker plaintiffs obtained final FSIA judgments against the Syrian Arab Republic for state‑sponsored terrorism (Gates: judgment from D.C. court; Baker: larger judgment later entered).
- Both groups sought to execute their judgments by attaching Syrian assets located in the U.S.; both learned of relevant assets identified in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Gates registered its judgment and served citations in the Northern District of Illinois first (Dec. 8, 2011); Gates filed a § 1610(c) order from the D.C. court but did not seek a new § 1610(c) order from the Illinois court.
- Baker registered in Illinois slightly later, obtained a new § 1610(c) order from the Northern District of Illinois, and served garnishment notices thereafter.
- The Illinois district court held Gates’ liens had priority (first‑in‑time under Illinois law) and ordered turnover of AT&T and JP Morgan Chase funds to Gates; Baker appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) applies to attachments under § 1610(g) (terrorism‑specific execution provision) | Baker: § 1610(c) applies and requires court order in each district before attachment | Gates: § 1610(c) applies only to subsections (a) and (b); § 1610(g) is not referenced and thus is not covered | Court: § 1610(c) does not apply to § 1610(g); omission of § 1610(g) in (c) and FSIA structure show Congress meant to exclude (g) |
| Whether a § 1610(c) order must be obtained in each district where attachments occur | Baker: each district must issue its own § 1610(c) determination | Gates: a single § 1610(c) determination (where made) suffices nationwide | Court: even if § 1610(c) applied, one judicial determination per judgment is sufficient; later attachments only increase elapsed time and do not require reopening the issue |
| Priority of competing liens on Syrian assets in Illinois | Baker: their later‑obtained Illinois § 1610(c) order/garnishments or New York writs gave them priority | Gates: Illinois law gives priority to liens first in time; Gates served citations earlier and thus hold priority | Court: Illinois law treats lien priority as first in time; Gates’ citations (Dec. 8, 2011) perfected earlier liens than Baker’s actions; Gates has priority |
| Effect of parallel New York proceedings and JP Morgan Chase writs | Baker: New York writs perfected a lien that should take priority over Gates’ Illinois actions | Gates: Illinois court had jurisdiction and first in time liens; New York duplicative filings cannot trump that | Court: Duplicative New York proceedings do not displace Illinois court’s priority; district court properly retained jurisdiction and enjoined duplicative relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 637 F.3d 783 (7th Cir.) (FSIA governs immunity and attachment questions)
- Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1983) (FSIA provides comprehensive statutory framework for immunity)
- First Nat’l City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (U.S. 1983) (respect separate juridical identity of state agencies for attachment absent special showing)
- Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 646 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (affirming liability judgment against Syria)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir.) (procedural rules on attachment execution and application of state law procedures)