Holocaust Victims of v. OTP Bank
692 F.3d 638
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Holocaust survivors/heirs sue MKB Bank and OTP Bank in federal court under FSIA, ATS, and federal question jurisdiction for alleged expropriation of Jewish assets in Hungary during WWII.
- Complaint alleges banks froze Jewish deposits and helped centralize looted funds to finance genocide; safe deposit boxes and homes later found emptied or occupied.
- District court denied motions to dismiss and denied certification for interlocutory appeal; banks sought appellate review and mandamus.
- Court addresses appellate jurisdiction and mandamus requests; discusses sovereign immunity defense by Magyar Nemzeti Bank (MNB) as central anchor for jurisdictional questions.
- Court ultimately dismisses MKB and OTP appeals for lack of personal jurisdiction and grants mandamus to dismiss claims against them in U.S. courts.
- Context includes U.S. foreign policy considerations and the balance between addressing historic crimes and upholding the final-judgment rule
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal against district court denial is jurisdictionally proper | MKB/OTP argue pendent appellate jurisdiction over MNB’s immunity appeal. | MKB/OTP contend intertwined issues justify immediate review. | No pendent appellate jurisdiction over MKB/OTP; dismiss. |
| Whether the denial qualifications qualify for collateral-order review | Adverse foreign-relations consequences warrant immediate appeal. | Collateral-order review is limited; political-question denial not immediately appealable. | Collateral-order review does not apply to MKB/OTP; mandamus still warranted for general-jurisdiction ruling. |
| Whether the case should be reviewed via mandamus for general personal jurisdiction | District court erred by lacking general jurisdiction over MKB/OTP. | Contacts are not “essentially at home” in the U.S.; no general jurisdiction. | Mandamus granted; district court must dismiss claims against MKB/OTP for lack of general jurisdiction. |
| Whether Rule 4(k)(2) can support general jurisdiction over MKB/OTP | Aggregate U.S. contacts justify general jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2). | Rule 4(k)(2) does not relax constitutional minimum-contacts for general jurisdiction. | Rule 4(k)(2) does not create general jurisdiction; Goodyear/Perkins standards apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (established minimum contacts due process standard)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (Supreme Court 1952) (corporation at home; continuous and systematic contacts)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court 1984) (general jurisdiction requires more than occasional purchases or contacts)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2847 (Supreme Court 2011) (general jurisdiction requires the foreign corporation to be essentially at home in the forum)
- Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (imputing or not imputing parent/subsidiary contacts for general jurisdiction)
- uBid, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010) (aggregated contacts still may not establish general jurisdiction)
- ISI International, Inc. v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2001) (Rule 4(k)(2) applies to federal claims; not a general-jurisdiction fix")
- Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, F.3d (7th Cir. 2012) (pertains to FSIA sovereign-immunity collateral-order/appeal)
- Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (Supreme Court 1995) (limited scope of collateral-order doctrine; exceptional cases only)
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (Supreme Court 1997) (collateral-order concept referenced in limited form)
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (Supreme Court 2009) (collateral-order doctrine limits; need for final-judgment rule)
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (Supreme Court 1994) (collateral-order doctrine must be narrow)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (Supreme Court 2006) (collateral-order doctrine scope and function)