GIBRALTAR PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. Bank Sepah

S.D. New York

GIBRALTAR PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. Bank Sepah

526 F. Supp. 560, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15923

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedNovember 19, 1981

Docket78 Civ. 4077 (KTD)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 526 F. Supp. 560 (GIBRALTAR PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. Bank Sepah) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

GIBRALTAR PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. Bank Sepah, 526 F. Supp. 560, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15923 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge:

Plaintiff moves to restore this case to the trial calendar. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant correctly asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction. The claims of United States nationals against Iran and its agencies are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal established by the Algerian Declaration and cannot be maintained in United States courts at this time.. See Dames & Moore v. Regan, — U.S. —, 101 S.Ct. 2972, 69 L.Ed.2d 918 (1981).

In response to defendant’s argument, plaintiff argues that its claim herein was assigned to it by Fonogram, S.A., a Panamanian corporation, and that this assignment removes this case from the purview of the Algerian Declaration. Even if the Declaration is inapplicable here, plaintiff’s argument lacks merit. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim between a foreign national (Fonogram) and a foreign sovereign (defendant Bank Sepah). Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 320, 322 (2d Cir. 1981). Plaintiff assignee can have no greater rights to sue Bank Sepah than its assignor. See Caribbean Steamship Co. v. Sonmez Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S., 598 F.2d 1264 (2d Cir. 1979).

Thus, this motion to restore this ease to the active calendar of this court is denied. The complaint is dismissed in view of the fact that this court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge:

Plaintiff moves to restore this case to the trial calendar. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant correctly asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction. The claims of United States nationals against Iran and its agencies are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal established by the Algerian Declaration and cannot be maintained in United States courts at this time.. See Dames & Moore v. Regan, — U.S. —, 101 S.Ct. 2972, 69 L.Ed.2d 918 (1981).

In response to defendant’s argument, plaintiff argues that its claim herein was assigned to it by Fonogram, S.A., a Panamanian corporation, and that this assignment removes this case from the purview of the Algerian Declaration. Even if the Declaration is inapplicable here, plaintiff’s argument lacks merit. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim between a foreign national (Fonogram) and a foreign sovereign (defendant Bank Sepah). Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 320, 322 (2d Cir. 1981). Plaintiff assignee can have no greater rights to sue Bank Sepah than its assignor. See Caribbean Steamship Co. v. Sonmez Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S., 598 F.2d 1264 (2d Cir. 1979).

Thus, this motion to restore this ease to the active calendar of this court is denied. The complaint is dismissed in view of the fact that this court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 F. Supp. 560, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibraltar-petroleum-corporation-v-bank-sepah-nysd-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack