Micula v. Government of Romania
714 F. App'x 18
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioners (Swedish nationals and affiliated companies, including Viorel Micula) obtained an ICSID arbitral award against Romania.
- Petitioners sought recognition/enforcement in U.S. courts via ex parte, summary proceedings under New York CPLR Article 54 in SDNY; judgment entered April 2015 and later amended to add Viorel Micula.
- Romania moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) to amend/vacate/stay, arguing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) exclusively governs enforcement of ICSID awards and SDNY was improper venue.
- The district court denied Romania’s motions; Romania appealed those denials.
- The Second Circuit treated the appeal in light of Mobil Cerro Negro and reversed, holding the FSIA governs enforcement, summary ex parte CPLR procedures are incompatible with FSIA, and SDNY was not proper venue on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA governs enforcement of ICSID awards in U.S. federal courts | Petitioners argued FSIA does not apply; summary CPLR procedure can convert ICSID award into U.S. judgment | Romania argued FSIA provides exclusive jurisdictional and procedural route to enforce ICSID awards | FSIA applies and is the exclusive mechanism for enforcement; CPLR summary ex parte procedure is incompatible with FSIA |
| Whether ex parte summary proceedings satisfied service and jurisdictional requirements | Petitioners relied on CPLR summary filing and immediate entry of judgment without confronting Romania | Romania argued lack of FSIA-compliant service deprived court of jurisdiction | Judgment void for lack of FSIA-compliant service; plenary action with proper process required |
| Whether SDNY was proper venue under FSIA | Petitioners did not assert FSIA venue bases; relied on filing in SDNY | Romania argued venue improper because FSIA venue prerequisites not met and relevant conduct/property located in Romania or D.C. | Venue improper in SDNY on this record; plaintiffs may refile where FSIA venue proper |
| Whether district court’s refusal to vacate judgment was reviewable | Petitioners maintained denial appropriate; judgment valid | Romania sought relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) asserting void judgment | Rule 59(e) denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b) review de novo; judgment vacated as void under FSIA |
Key Cases Cited
- Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2017) (FSIA governs enforcement of ICSID awards; CPLR summary ex parte procedures incompatible with FSIA)
- Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motions)
- Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b) review is de novo)
- City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2011) (judgment is void if entering court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction)