Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135710

Background

Plaintiffs Sikhs for Justice and seven individuals sue Nath and INC in NY federal court, asserting ATS/TVPA violations and various state-law claims; Nath’s motion to dismiss was granted in March 2012; proceedings included a motion for reconsideration, a default judgment motion against INC, and a stay of the ATS claim pending Kiobel; the March Opinion dismissed Nath without prejudice and the INC moved to dismiss or stay; the court denied reconsideration and granted partial dismissal, with limited jurisdictional discovery as to Nath and INOC; the court stayed the ATS claim pending Kiobel and denied default judgment against INC; the FAC alleged INC controlled INOC and involvement in planning Sikh violence in 1984; service and jurisdictional issues centered on Rule 4, Hague Convention, FSIA, and act of state concerns; Kiobel decision pending influenced rulings on corporate/organizational liability and jurisdiction; the court reserved ruling on statute-of-limitations issues and granted limited discovery on INC-INOC relationship.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service of process complied with Rule 4 and the Hague Convention.	Plaintiffs contended Hague Central Authority failures and good-cause for extensions.	Defendants argued defective service and improper Hague compliance.	Denied; service deemed proper; Central Authority delays did not defeat service.
Whether the INC is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.	Plaintiffs asserted INOC as INC’s agent or mere department to establish contacts.	INC argued lack of agency, no binding control, and insufficient NY contacts.	Limited jurisdictional discovery granted to examine INOC-INC relationship; no full jurisdiction established yet.
Whether TVPA claims against INC are proper.	INC may bear aiding-and-abetting liability under TVPA.	Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority forecloses TVPA liability for organizations; aiding/abetting not allowed.	TVPA claim against INC dismissed; Mohamad controls and bars organizational liability.
Whether ATS claims require Kiobel stay and incorporation of Kiobel analysis.	Kiobel may clarify corporate liability and extraterritorial scope.	Kiobel will govern whether ATS claims can proceed against INC.	ATS claim stayed pending Kiobel decision; subject-matter jurisdiction pending Kiobel.
Whether a default judgment against INC is appropriate.	Request for default based on Hague service and notice.	No willful default and meritorious defenses; substantial prejudice lacking.	Default judgment denied; defenses and merits to be addressed.

Key Cases Cited

Henderson v. Metro. Bank & Trust Co., 502 F.Supp.2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (reconsideration standard and finality concerns under Local Rule 6.3)
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (strict standard for reconsideration; controlling decisions overlooked must alter outcome)
Schonberger v. Serchuk, 742 F.Supp. 108 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (limitations on reconsideration; not duplicative of prior rulings)
Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (burden and scope of jurisdictional proof; outside-the-pleadings evidence considered)
Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995) (act of state doctrine and status of government acts)
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000) (agency/department theories for jurisdiction; Beech Aircraft factors)
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Beech Aircraft, 751 F.2d 117 (2d Cir. 1984) (factors for piercing corporate veil and related-jurisdiction)
Mohamad v. Rajoub, 634 F.3d 604 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (TVPA cannot extend liability to organizations; aiding/abetting limitations)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., — U.S.—, 132 S. Ct. 1326 (2012) (addressed corporate/organizational liability under ATS and extraterritorial reach)
In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (jurisdictional discovery and status of organizational entities)