Simon v. Republic of Hungary
277 F. Supp. 3d 42
D.D.C.2017Background
- Fourteen named plaintiffs are Hungarian Jewish survivors (or heirs) alleging that Hungary and its national railway, MÁV, seized their personal property during the 1941–45 Holocaust and failed to provide just restitution.
- Plaintiffs sued in U.S. district court seeking restitution and other remedies; earlier dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds (Simon I) was partly reversed by the D.C. Circuit (Simon II), which held the FSIA expropriation exception could apply to genocidal takings and remanded other issues.
- On remand plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding allegations to satisfy the FSIA commercial-activity nexus; defendants moved to dismiss again, raising (inter alia) factual challenges to FSIA nexus, prudential exhaustion (international comity / domestic remedies in Hungary), and forum non conveniens.
- The court concluded prudential exhaustion applies to these genocidal-takings claims (following Seventh Circuit precedent) and that plaintiffs must first pursue Hungarian remedies unless doing so would be clearly futile.
- The court found plaintiffs failed to show futility or that Hungary is an inadequate forum, and therefore dismissed the action without prejudice on prudential-exhaustion grounds and, alternatively, on forum non conveniens grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA expropriation exception permits suit in U.S. for property taken in genocide | Plaintiffs: expropriation exception applies; takings were genocidal, so claims are "rights in property" under FSIA | Defendants: factual nexus to U.S. and possession/proceeds allegations insufficient | Court did not resolve on merits here (D.C. Cir. already held some property claims implicate §1605(a)(3)); remand focused on exhaustion and forum non conveniens; dismissal on other prudential grounds granted |
| Prudential exhaustion / international comity — must plaintiffs exhaust Hungarian remedies before U.S. suit? | Plaintiffs: exhaustion unnecessary or futile; Hungarian remedies are inadequate or time-barred; bias/anti-Semitism and impaired judiciary make Hungary inadequate | Defendants: international comity and precedent (Abelesz/Fischer) require exhaustion; Hungary provides available remedies and courts are competent | Held: Prudential exhaustion applies; plaintiffs must pursue Hungarian remedies first and have not shown futility; dismissal without prejudice required |
| Futility of pursuing remedies in Hungary | Plaintiffs: statutory limitations, inadequate compensation scheme, procedural differences, anti-Semitism, judicial independence concerns render Hungary futile | Defendants: Hungary has constitutional protections, amended Basic Law, available procedures, damages remedies, and Hungary has resolved similar claims | Held: Plaintiffs failed to meet the high futility standard; Hungary is an adequate and available forum |
| Forum non conveniens — should case be litigated in Hungary instead of U.S.? | Plaintiffs: U.S. is proper forum; emotional burden of returning to Hungary; U.S. plaintiff interests predominate for U.S. citizens | Defendants: private/public Gulf Oil factors favor Hungary (evidence, witnesses, applicable law, localized interest) | Held: Alternative forum available and adequate; private and public interest factors strongly favor Hungary; dismissal on forum non conveniens also warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 37 F. Supp. 3d 381 (D.D.C. 2014) (district-court opinion dismissing on FSIA treaty-exception grounds)
- Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (appellate opinion holding FSIA expropriation exception may apply to genocidal takings and remanding unresolved prudential issues)
- Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 692 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2012) (adopting prudential exhaustion for related Holocaust-expropriation claims)
- Fischer v. Magyar Államvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2015) (refining prudential exhaustion test and applying comity/futility analysis)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (discussing limits on extraterritorial application of laws and international comity concerns)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (forum non conveniens framework; adequacy of alternative forum)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (public and private interest factors for forum non conveniens)
- Pimentel v. Philippines, 553 U.S. 851 (2008) (comity interest in allowing foreign states to use their own courts)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (district courts may dismiss on forum non conveniens without deciding jurisdiction)
- Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co., 137 S. Ct. 1312 (2017) (recognizing arguments that sovereign takings of nationals’ property can violate international law)