Vera v. Republic of Cuba
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15028
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Aldo Vera Sr. was killed in Puerto Rico in 1976; his son Aldo Vera Jr. sued the Republic of Cuba and obtained a 2008 Florida default judgment under the FSIA "terrorism" exception.
- Vera obtained a federal judgment in S.D.N.Y. giving full faith and credit to the Florida judgment and sought to execute it against Cuban assets.
- Vera served an information subpoena on BBVA’s New York branch seeking information about Cuban assets inside and outside the U.S.; BBVA produced domestic-branch data but refused to produce information about assets located abroad.
- BBVA moved to quash, arguing the underlying federal judgment was void because the FSIA’s terrorism exception did not apply (Cuba was not designated a state sponsor of terrorism at the time of the 1976 killing and Vera failed to prove the designation resulted from that killing).
- The district court compelled compliance, held BBVA in contempt, and granted turnover relief; BBVA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim against Cuba under the FSIA terrorism exception | Vera argued the Florida court’s findings (and resulting federal judgment) established Cuba was a state sponsor of terrorism and thus subject to suit | BBVA argued Cuba was not designated at the time of the killing and Vera failed to prove the designation resulted from that killing, so FSIA immunity barred suit | Court held FSIA terrorism exception did not apply because Cuba wasn’t designated at the time and Vera failed to prove the designation resulted from the killing; thus the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court could rely on the Florida court’s jurisdictional findings | Vera relied on full faith and credit and urged deference to the Florida findings | BBVA argued the federal court must independently assess FSIA jurisdiction and is not bound by default-judgment findings where the sovereign did not appear | Court held the district court erred in adopting the Florida court’s findings without independent FSIA analysis; default/jurisdictional findings do not bind the federal court in these circumstances |
| Whether TRIA or Full Faith and Credit supplied federal jurisdiction to enforce the judgment | Vera argued recognition/entry under Full Faith and Credit and TRIA gave federal jurisdiction to enforce the judgment | BBVA argued those provisions do not create subject-matter jurisdiction when the underlying judgment is invalid for lack of FSIA jurisdiction | Court held Full Faith and Credit does not confer jurisdiction and TRIA requires a valid underlying judgment; neither cured the jurisdictional defect |
| Whether the subpoena served to enforce the judgment was enforceable | Vera argued the subpoena was a proper enforcement tool for a valid federal judgment | BBVA argued the subpoena was void because it enforced a judgment entered without jurisdiction | Court held the subpoena was void because it sought to enforce a judgment entered without subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (federal courts must consider subject-matter jurisdiction threshold; jurisdictional defects can render subsequent process void)
- Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (FSIA requires federal courts to satisfy themselves that an immunity exception applies before proceeding)
- Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S. Ct. 1310 (2016) (jurisdiction over a foreign state exists only under an FSIA exception)
- Jerez v. Republic of Cuba, 775 F.3d 419 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (default judgments against Cuba under the terrorism exception were void where designation was not shown to result from plaintiff’s alleged injuries)
- Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993) (28 U.S.C. § 1330 is the sole basis for federal jurisdiction over foreign states)