Shlomo Leibovitich v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5493
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Victims: A 2003 terrorist attack in Jerusalem killed a 7-year-old Israeli girl, permanently disabled her 3-year-old American-citizen sister, and emotionally injured six family members; plaintiffs obtained a $67 million default judgment against Iran under the Antiterrorism Act and FSIA.
- Plaintiffs sought to discover Iranian government assets worldwide held by two large foreign banks (Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ and BNP Paribas) to satisfy the judgment.
- Plaintiffs served federal subpoenas and Illinois citations on the banks’ Chicago branches and on the parent banks, seeking searches of all worldwide branches (over 7,500 branches combined).
- The Chicago branches produced information showing no Iranian assets; banks refused to search foreign branches or home offices and moved to quash, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction over the foreign parents.
- Plaintiffs argued Rule 45 enforcement does not require personal jurisdiction over nonparty foreign parents; the district court agreed with the banks and quashed the subpoenas; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 45 subpoenas can compel foreign parent banks to search worldwide branches without personal jurisdiction | Rule 45 enforcement does not depend on personal jurisdiction over subpoenaed foreign parents | Court must have personal jurisdiction over the person from whom discovery is sought; absent sufficient contacts, it cannot compel worldwide searches | Personal jurisdiction is required; subpoenas seeking worldwide branch searches exceed court's jurisdiction over foreign parents and were properly quashed |
| Whether specific jurisdiction exists based on banks’ U.S. branches | Plaintiffs: connection to U.S. forum via branches and citation/subpoena issued in district suffices | Banks: subpoenas are not limited to U.S. activities and seek information about foreign branches/home offices | Specific jurisdiction lacking because subpoenas were not tied to the banks’ U.S. activities and Chicago branches had no relevant assets or knowledge |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists over foreign banks in Illinois | Plaintiffs: banks’ U.S. presence (branches) supports jurisdiction | Banks: not "essentially at home" in forum; Daimler limits general jurisdiction to domicile or equivalent | General jurisdiction absent; banks not ‘‘at home’’ in Illinois under Daimler |
| Plaintiffs’ choice of forum and use of discovery to locate assets | Plaintiffs: forum acceptable; discovery can locate assets anywhere | Banks: plaintiffs offered no evidence tying case to Illinois or showing U.S. branches hold or know of Iranian assets | Plaintiffs failed to show any connection to Illinois or basis to compel worldwide discovery; they must look abroad to execute judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Leibovitch v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 697 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2012) (prior appeal in the underlying suit against Iran)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction to forums where corporation is essentially at home)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (specific jurisdiction requires forum contacts tied to the litigation)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (principles governing specific personal jurisdiction)
- Gucci America, Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) (discusses limits on using Rule 45 to obtain discovery from foreign entities)
- Application to Enforce Administrative Subpoenas of S.E.C. v. Knowles, 87 F.3d 413 (10th Cir. 1996) (addresses subpoena enforcement and personal jurisdiction considerations)