543 F. App'x 152
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Appellants Ben-Haim, Havivi, and Elmalem appeal a district court order dismissing their amended complaint against Israeli officials and NGOs.
- They sue under ATS and TVPA alleging violations related to Israel’s family-law system and alleged discrimination against fathers.
- Counts include ATS tort claims, TVPA torture claim, and related claims against non-profits, plus a state-law emotional distress claim.
- District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; Kiobel discussed as potentially controlling.
- Court holds ATS claims fail for extraterritoriality; TVPA claims fail for plausibility; no extreme cruelty or severe mental harm alleged.
- On review, Third Circuit affirms dismissal and denies motion to add evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kiobel bars ATS claims here | Counts 1, 3, and 5–7 allege violations connected to Israel and should proceed. | Kiobel requires extraterritorial application; ATS claims lack jurisdiction. | Counts 1, 3, and 5–7 lack subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether TVPA claims are pled plausibly | Havivi alleges forced psychiatric treatment; plaintiffs seek TVPA relief. | No extreme cruelty or severe mental harm alleged; claims insufficient. | TVPA claims fail to state a claim; dismissal proper. |
| Whether district court properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) | Amended complaint asserts cognizable international-law violations; jurisdiction exists. | Extraterritorial ATS and lack of plausible TVPA claims negate jurisdiction and viability. | Court affirms dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (extraterritoriality governs ATS application)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS defines jurisdictional scope and universal norms)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead plausible claims, not mere conclusions)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) (presumption against extraterritorial application)
- In re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 25 F.3d 1467 (1994) (universal, obligatory norms standard)
- Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2010) (Rule 12(b)(6) and standard for dismissal)
- Atkinson v. Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Co., 473 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional standards in Third Circuit)