Vera v. Republic of Cuba
802 F.3d 242
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Aldo Vera Jr. obtained a 2008 Florida default judgment against the Republic of Cuba under the FSIA terrorism exception; later registered in S.D.N.Y. for $49,346,713.22 after punitive damages were excluded.
- Vera pursued post-judgment collection in S.D.N.Y., issuing subpoenas to New York branches of several banks to locate Cuban sovereign assets worldwide.
- BBVA (Spanish bank) produced information about assets in its New York branch but refused to disclose information about assets held in its foreign branches.
- While a turnover petition and collection proceedings remained pending in the Southern District, the district court (Hellerstein, J.) ordered BBVA to provide full answers about Cuba’s assets both inside and outside the U.S. and later denied BBVA’s reconsideration motion.
- BBVA appealed the enforcement and denial-of-reconsideration orders and moved for a stay pending appeal; Vera argued the orders were not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, depriving the court of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether orders compelling BBVA to disclose worldwide information and denying reconsideration are appealable final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Vera: Orders are interlocutory; appeal is premature because collection proceedings continue and BBVA can seek review after contempt or at final judgment | BBVA: Orders are final because they effectively end what the district court can do and the information sought will be useful only in foreign proceedings, making immediate review necessary | Court: Orders are not § 1291 final decisions; appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (review remains available after contempt or at conclusion of collection proceedings) |
| Whether the collateral-order doctrine allows immediate appeal of the discovery/enforcement order | Vera: Collateral-order doctrine does not apply because review remains available later and BBVA can defy and appeal contempt | BBVA: Immediate review required; post-judgment collection context makes contempt route inadequate | Court: Collateral-order doctrine not satisfied; contempt/after-the-fact review preserves appellate rights, so interlocutory appeal improper |
| Whether analogy to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (orders final because they conclude district-court work) applies | Vera: This is internal discovery for S.D.N.Y. collection proceedings, not § 1782 foreign-tribunal discovery | BBVA: Disclosure pertains to extraterritorial assets and thus is effectively discovery for foreign proceedings, making the order akin to a § 1782 order | Court: § 1782 inapposite because order furthers S.D.N.Y. collection proceedings; cannot assume compliance will be usable only abroad; finality not established |
| Whether district court’s prior instruction to file turnover petition or multiplicity of proceedings alters finality | Vera: Status quo and ongoing collection proceedings control finality analysis | BBVA: Multiple overlapping proceedings and differing roles mean the enforcement order is effectively dispositive as to the subpoenaed subject matter | Court: Irrespective of procedural posture, the enforcement order did not end the collection litigation; not appealable under § 1291 |
Key Cases Cited
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (establishes final-decision rule for § 1291)
- In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor, 490 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2007) (subpoena-enforcement orders generally not immediately appealable)
- EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012) (collateral-order doctrine for discovery against third-party debtor limited where contempt route available)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) (review of contempt enforcement after defiance of subpoena)
- United States v. Fried, 386 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1967) (post-judgment subpoena enforcement not final)
- Chevron Corp. v. Berlinger, 629 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2011) (§ 1782 orders may be immediately appealable when they conclude district-court proceedings)
- Dynegy Midstream Servs., LP v. Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (orders directing compliance with arbitrator subpoenas treated as final when they conclude issuing court’s work)
- United States v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1996) (orders to testify before other tribunals can be immediately appealed)
- Co-defendant precedent: Cox v. United States, 783 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2015) (discusses finality standard)