Victims of Hungarian Holocaust v. Hungarian State Railways
798 F. Supp. 2d 934
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Plaintiffs, Holocaust victims, sue Hungarian State Railways (HSR), a government instrumentality, for alleged international takings and related claims connected to looting and expropriation during the Holocaust.
- Plaintiffs allege rights in property were taken in violation of international law, including alleged genocide aiding/abetting, customary international law, unjust enrichment, and misrepresentations.
- HSR moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting FSIA immunity, non-justiciable political questions, treaty nongrip, act of state doctrine, and forum non conveniens.
- Court need not resolve disputed historical facts at the pleadings stage; sufficient allegations support invocation of FSIA expropriation exception for purposes of dismissal posture.
- Court concludes the FSIA issue is not ripe for adjudication on a motion to dismiss and denies the motion to dismiss; motion to strike is moot.
- Procedural posture remains: FSIA immunity defenses, ties to foreign relations, and related doctrines will be revisited at summary judgment or later stages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA immunity bars jurisdiction under the expropriation exception | Plaintiffs allege rights in property were taken and nexus exists. | HSR asserts instrumentalities are immune and facts are insufficient for the nexus. | FSIA issue not ripe; allegations suffice to proceed at pleadings stage; immunity not resolved on motion. |
| Whether the case presents a non-justiciable political question | Peace Treaty obligations and political resolution do not bar this suit. | Dispute concerns state-to-state resolution and treaty considerations. | Not dismissed on political question grounds at this stage. |
| Whether the Peace Treaty is self-executing and creates a private cause of action | Claims rest on normative framework of the Peace Treaty and customary international law. | Treaty self-execution not required for private action; other authorities support private relief. | Private action grounded in international norms; not necessary for treaty to be self-executing. |
| Whether the act of state doctrine bars the claims | Genocide-era acts fall under well-established international human rights norms. | Act of state defense could bar scrutiny of foreign sovereign acts. | Not applicable at pleadings stage; may be revisited at summary judgment. |
| Whether forum non conveniens warrants dismissal | Plaintiffs chosen forum in the United States appropriate; witnesses dispersed, evidence scattered. | Hungarian forum available and adequate; convenience favors dismissal. | Not warranted to dismiss; plaintiff’s forum choice preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zappia Middle East Const. Co. Ltd. v. Emirate of Abu Dhabi, 215 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2000) (expropriation nexus under FSIA takings exception)
- Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 616 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (FSIA expropriation nexus; international takings)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (universal norms; private action for international law violations)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard to state plausible claims)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1983) (political question considerations in federal court)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (textual commitment and justiciability doctrines)
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1964) (act of state doctrine considerations)
- Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (U.S. 2004) (act of state doctrine and foreign relations law)
- Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Federation, 528 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (act of state doctrine considerations in genocide-related claims)
- Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995) (genocide claims under international law)