Holocaust Victims of Bank Theft v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank
807 F. Supp. 2d 699
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- MKB Bayerische Landesbank and Erste Group Bank moved for reconsideration, clarification, and certification after a May 18, 2011 denial of motions to dismiss.
- Plaintiffs allege Holocaust victims’ claims against MKB and Erste under the Alien Tort Statute and related theories in the Northern District of Illinois.
- The court considered the Government’s Statement of Interest regarding foreign policy concerns and executive agreements/treaties but found the motions premature and not ripe for dismissal based on those interests.
- MKB argued the court erred by basing personal jurisdiction on Rule 4(k)(2) rather than Rule 4(k)(1); the court disagreed and upheld jurisdiction based on United States-wide contacts.
- The court denied MKB’s reconsideration and certification requests, and denied Erste’s reconsideration and certification requests, leaving the court’s May 18 ruling intact.
- The court noted that interlocutory appeals are disfavored and found no substantial ground for immediate appeal on the certified issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether personal jurisdiction over MKB rests on Rule 4(k)(2) | MKB argues the ruling relied on Rule 4(k)(1) and not 4(k)(2) | Court should not rely on Rule 4(k)(2) for jurisdiction | Denied; court maintained jurisdiction based on nationwide contacts under 4(k)(2) |
| Whether the Court properly considered the Government’s Statement of Interest | Assertion that the court overlooked foreign policy concerns | Court carefully considered the Statement and concluded issues were not ripe | Clarification not needed; court’s analysis remained intact |
| Whether the court should certify an interlocutory appeal on personal jurisdiction | MKB seeks certification under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) | Interlocutory appeal inappropriate; substantial difference of opinion not shown | Denied for personal jurisdiction issue |
| Whether to certify an interlocutory appeal on the justiciability/timeliness against Erste | Erste seeks certification on justiciability and statute of limitations | Similarly unsupported for immediate appeal | Denied; not suitable for interlocutory appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1935) (basis for general jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (general principles of minimum contacts; long-arm jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (limits on general jurisdiction in certain contexts)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (state-by-state approach to stream of commerce cases; corporate liability)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) ( Alien Tort Statute jurisdiction context; national contacts)
- Flomo v. Firestone Nat. Rubber Co., LLC, 643 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2011) (corporate liability under ATSA; circuit split clarification)