Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd.
865 F. Supp. 2d 425
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Wultz family sues Bank of China for acts of international terrorism and related negligence claims arising from a 2006 Tel Aviv bombing that killed Daniel Wultz and injured Yekutiel Wultz.
- Plaintiffs seek application of Israeli law or New York law to non-federal claims; prior ruling favored Israeli law but was reconsidered in light of Lied v. Lebanese Canadian Bank.
- Lied held New York law applies to a conduct-regulating rule where the conduct occurred in New York, influencing the court’s choice of law here.
- Court compares Lied to the present case, noting BOC’s conduct largely occurred in Guangzhou, China, with minimal connection to New York.
- Court finds China has a stronger interest in regulating bank conduct within its borders; Israeli law is no longer favored for plaintiffs’ non-federal claims.
- The court leaves open briefing on Chinese tort law, with Antiterrorism Act claim unaffected and a June 12, 2012 deadline for further briefing if needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law between Israeli and New York law for non-federal claims | Plaintiffs argue Israeli law governs conduct-regulating rules. | Bank argues New York or Chinese law could apply; cites Lied and China’s interests. | Chinese law or New York law favored over Israeli law; Chinese interest dispositive to choose law. |
| Application of Lied to current case | Lied’s New York-based conduct supports New York law. | BOC’s conduct largely in China; Lied should control court’s analysis. | Lied governs; locus of conduct in China supports applying Chinese law or New York depending on context. |
| Where conduct occurred vs where injuries occurred | Injuries occurred in Israel; conduct occurred abroad. | BOC’s conduct chiefly in China; injury location is less determinative for conduct-regulating rules. | Location of conduct (China) controls; Israel’s injury location does not govern. |
| Impact on need for Chinese tort law briefing | Chinese law may apply; need briefing. | Court should determine whether Chinese tort law would apply without further briefing. | If necessary, briefing on Chinese tort law to proceed; ARA remains unaffected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lied v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 672 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2012) (conduct-regulating rule; New York law applies when conduct occurs there; Lied controls this choice)
- Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 672 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2012) (bank conduct and tolls; aligns with conduct occurring within jurisdiction’s borders)
- GlobalNet Fin. Corp. v. Frank Crystal & Co., 449 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006) (strong interest in regulating behavior within borders; basis for rule selection)
- Hunter v. Derby Foods, Inc., 110 F.2d 970 (2d Cir. 1940) (location of injury vs. defendant’s conduct; distinguishable due to third-party criminal act)
- Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, 65 N.Y.2d 189 (1985) (locus jurisdiction’s interests in protecting reasonable expectations of parties)