Levin v. Bank of New York

S.D. New York

Levin v. Bank of New York

DecidedJanuary 27, 2022

Docket1:09-cv-05900

StatusUnknown

This text of Levin v. Bank of New York (Levin v. Bank of New York) 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

Levin v. Bank of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JEREMY LEVIN, et al., Plaintiffs, 09-CV-5900 (JPO) -V- ORDER BANK OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: In their respective briefs for the pending motion to dismiss in this case, Plaintiffs and Defendants primarily dispute whether Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign and Immunities Act strips extraterritorial assets of immunity from attachment and execution. Yet neither party squarely addresses the Supreme Court’s holding in Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 1n which it held the following about Section 1610(g): Section 1610(g) serves to identify property that will be available for attachment and execution in satisfaction of a § 1605A judgment, but it does not in itself divest property of immunity. Rather, the provision's language “as provided in this section” shows that § 1610(g) operates only when the property at issue is exempt from immunity as provided elsewhere in § 1610. Petitioners cannot invoke § 1610(g) to attach and execute against the antiquities at issue here, which petitioners have not established are exempt from immunity under any other provision in § 1610. 138 S. Ct. 816, 819 (2018) (emphasis added). The Court thus invites letters from both parties, by February 4, 2022, addressing the holding in Rubin and whether the “Melli Blocked Account” is “exempt from immunity as provided elsewhere in § 1610.” SO ORDERED. Dated: January 27, 2022 New York, New York

J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JEREMY LEVIN, et al., Plaintiffs, 09-CV-5900 (JPO) -V- ORDER BANK OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: In their respective briefs for the pending motion to dismiss in this case, Plaintiffs and Defendants primarily dispute whether Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign and Immunities Act strips extraterritorial assets of immunity from attachment and execution. Yet neither party squarely addresses the Supreme Court’s holding in Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 1n which it held the following about Section 1610(g): Section 1610(g) serves to identify property that will be available for attachment and execution in satisfaction of a § 1605A judgment, but it does not in itself divest property of immunity. Rather, the provision's language “as provided in this section” shows that § 1610(g) operates only when the property at issue is exempt from immunity as provided elsewhere in § 1610. Petitioners cannot invoke § 1610(g) to attach and execute against the antiquities at issue here, which petitioners have not established are exempt from immunity under any other provision in § 1610. 138 S. Ct. 816, 819 (2018) (emphasis added). The Court thus invites letters from both parties, by February 4, 2022, addressing the holding in Rubin and whether the “Melli Blocked Account” is “exempt from immunity as provided elsewhere in § 1610.” SO ORDERED. Dated: January 27, 2022 New York, New York

J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Levin v. Bank of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levin-v-bank-of-new-york-nysd-2022.

Opinion

J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack