Holocaust Victims of v. Erste Group Bank
695 F.3d 655
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Holocaust survivors/heirs sue private banks including Erste for alleged expropriation in Hungary during WWII, asserting six ATS/FSIA claims and seeking class certification.
- District court denied motions to dismiss, reconsider, and to certify interlocutory appeals; several related cases against other defendants are proceeding in parallel.
- Erste seeks appellate review of district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss and files a mandamus petition if appellate review is lacking.
- Court recognizes potential appellate routes: collateral order doctrine and pendent appellate jurisdiction, both argued on behalf of Erste.
- Court holds it lacks appellate jurisdiction under collateral order and pendent jurisdiction; mandamus petition also denied for lack of clear right to relief.
- Concludes no jurisdiction to entertain Erste’s appeal and denies mandamus relief; separate opinion addresses sovereign immunity for MNB in a companion case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of Erste's motion to dismiss on political-question grounds is appealable collateral order? | Erste argues collateral-order review is available. | Court should follow Mohawk/Will; collateral order doctrine not available for political-question denial. | No collateral-order jurisdiction; denial not appealable. |
| Whether the court should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over Erste's appeal? | Erste contends its appeal is inextricably intertwined with co-defendants' appeals. | Pendent jurisdiction is narrow and not applicable here. | Rejected; no pendent appellate jurisdiction. |
| Whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus to compel dismissal? | Erste seeks mandamus to force dismissal. | Mandamus only in extraordinary circumstances; political-question ruling not clear right to mandamus. | Mandamus petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (U.S. 2009) (collateral-order doctrine is narrow and not for broad review of interlocutory rulings)
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (collateral order jurisdiction discussed in collateral-order context)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (U.S. 2006) (collateral order doctrine limits and clarifies applicability)
- Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1995) (rejects pendent/related-party appellate jurisdiction as a basis for appeal)
- McCarter v. Retirement Plan for Dist. Managers of American Family Ins. Grp., 540 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2008) (Swint principle applied to reject broad judicial-economy basis for pendent appellate jurisdiction)
- In re Austrian and German Holocaust Litigation, 250 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001) (mandamus commentary on executive-branch foreign policy judgments and district-court authority)