District Judge George B. Daniels, of the United * States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

1 09-0318-cv Freund v. SNCF



### UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPE ALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY O RDE R

R ULI NGS BY SUMM

ARY ORDE R DO NO T HAVE P REC EDE NTI AL EFF ECT

. C ITATION T O A SUMMARY ORD ER

FIL ED ON OR AFT ER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMI TTE D A ND IS GOVERN ED BY F EDE RAL R ULE OF A PPE LLATE P ROC EDU RE 32.1 AN D T HIS CO URT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HENCI TIN G A SUMMARY

ORD ER IN A DOC UME NT FIL ED WITH THIS COUR T , A PAR TY MUS T C ITE EI THE R T HE F EDE RAL A PPE NDI X OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WIT H T HE NOT ATI ON “ SUM MARY O RDE R ”). APARTY

CIT INGA SUM

MARY O RDE R MUST SE RVE A COP Y O F I T ON A NY PAR TY NOT REPRESE NTE D B Y

COUNSE L

.



### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 7 day of September, two thousand ten. th 

### 5 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 6 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 

### 9 Circuit Judge, 

### 10 GEORGE B. DANIELS, 

### 11 District Judge. * 

### 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

### 14 15 MATHILDE FREUND, LEO BRETHOLZ, FREDDIE 

### 16 KNOLLER, KURT SCHAECHTER, RAYMOND BONI, 

### 17 PIERRE CHANOVER, ABRAHAM DRESDNER, 

### 18 MARGOT FEIGENBAUM, SOLOMON HECHT, 

### 19 GINETTE KALISH, BEATRICE KARP, MAURICE 

### 20 KORNBERG, RUDOLPH LOEBEL, REGINA LOEBEL, 

### 21 RAYMOND MAGER, BERTHE BANIA PALUMBO,2 

### 1 SUSAN PHILLIP, INGEBORG PRICE, 

### 2 MARGUERITE ELIAS QUDDUS, SUZANNE RINGEL, 

### 3 SUZANNE RAPPOPORT RIPTON, VERA 

### 4 REICHMAN, COLETTE RORLS-THOMASSIN, 

### 5 MAURICE SALCFAS, LILIANE SCHIMKOVITZ, 

### 6 JACOB HECHT, on behalf of themselves and 

### 7 all others similarly situated, 

### 8 9 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

### 10 11 - v.- No. 09-0318-cv 

### 12 SOCIÉTÉ NATIONALE DES CHEMINS DE FER 

### 13 FRANÇAIS, 

### 14 15 16 Defendant-Appellee, 

### 17 18 REPUBLIC OF FRANCE and CAISSE DES 

### 19 DÉPÔTS ET CONSIGNATIONS, 

### 20 21 Defendants. 

### 22 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

### 24 25 FOR APPELLANTS: Isaac Lidsky, Akin Gump Strauss 

### 26 Hauer & Feld, London, United Kingdom 

### 27 (Harriet Tamen, Law Offices of 

### 28 Harriet Tamen, New York, NY; Stephen 

### 29 T. Rodd, Abbey Spanier Rodd & 

### 30 Abrams, LLP, New York, NY; Professor 

### 31 Lucille A. Roussin, New York, NY; 

### 32 Professor Malvina Halberstam, 

### 33 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 

### 34 New York, NY; William H. Davidson, 

### 35 New York, NY, on the brief). 

### 36 37 FOR APPELLEE: Professor Andreas S. Lowenfeld 

### 38 (Professor Linda J. Silberman, on 

### 39 the brief), New York University 

### 40 School of Law, New York, NY. 

### 41 42 FOR AMICUS CURIAE : Professor Jordan J. Paust, 

### 43 University of Houston Law Center, 

### 44 Houston, TX, for Amicus Curiae The 

### 45 Human Rights Committee of the3 

### 1 American Branch of the International 

### 2 Law Association. 

### 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

### 5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 

### 6 AFFIRMED

. 

### 7 8 Plaintiffs, a putative class of Holocaust survivors and 

### 9 the heirs and beneficiaries of Holocaust survivors and 

### 10 victims, appeal from the judgment of the United States 

### 11 District Court for the Southern District of New York 

### 12 (Sullivan, J.), which dismissed their claims relating to the 

### 13 spoliation of personal property during forced railroad 

### 14 deportations to holding camps in France and Nazi 

### 15 concentration camps. Plaintiffs brought suit against the 

### 16 Republic of France; the French national depository, Caisse 

### 17 des Dépôts et Consignations (“CDC”); and the French national 

### 18 railway, Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français 

### 19 (“SNCF”). The district court granted the motions filed by 

### 20 each of the three defendants seeking dismissal, inter alia, 

### 21 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign 

### 22 Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 

### 23 et seq. Plaintiffs appeal only as to the dismissal of their 

### 24 claims against SNCF. We assume the parties’ familiarity 

### 25 with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the 

### 26 issues presented for review. 

### 27 28 “The standard of review applicable to district court 

### 29 decisions regarding subject matter jurisdiction under the 

### 30 FSIA is clear error for factual findings and de novo for 

### 31 legal conclusions.” Robinson v. Gov’t of Malay., 269 F.3d 

### 32 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2001). Under the FSIA, “[o]nce the 

### 33 defendant presents a prima facie case that it is a foreign 

### 34 sovereign, the plaintiff has the burden of going forward 

### 35 with evidence showing that, under exceptions to the FSIA, 

### 36 immunity should not be granted, although the ultimate burden 

### 37 of persuasion remains with the alleged foreign sovereign.” 

### 38 Cargill Int’l S.A. v. M/T Pavel Dybenko, 991 F.2d 1012, 1016 

### 39 (2d Cir. 1993). 

### 40 41 It is not necessary in this case to track the shift of 

### 42 burdens or to assess the sufficiency of evidence because (i) 

### 43 SNCF’s motion to dismiss asserts foreign sovereign immunity; 

### 44 (ii) the only exception at issue is the takings exception, 

### 45 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3); and (iii) the complaint itself 

### 46 alleges a sequence of events that runs counter to any 

### 47 inference that the stolen “property or any property4 

### 1 exchanged for such property is owned or operated by” SNCF-- 

### 2 as required by the takings exception in the context of this 

### 3 litigation, id.; see also Garb v. Republic of Pol., 440 F.3d 

### 4 579, 581 (2d Cir. 2006). 

### 5 6 In the complaint, the term “Defendants” encompasses 

### 7 France, the CDC, and SNCF. See Compl. ¶ 1. There is no 

### 8 specific allegation that SNCF itself currently possesses the 

### 9 stolen property or any derivative property. The complaint 

### 10 alleges that SNCF seized the property without alleging that 

### 11 SNCF (as opposed to France or the CDC or even Germany) 

### 12 retained the property, or any derivative property: 

### 13 14 • “SNCF took the suitcases and other valuables, 

### 15 telling the victims that the Property would be 

### 16 returned to them. It was not.” Compl. ¶ 18. 

### 17 18 • “During the War, Defendants, by their own conduct 

### 19 individually took, and in concert with each other, 

### 20 aided and abetted and conspired to take, the 

### 21 Property of Plaintiffs, in violation of 

### 22 international law, both customary and treaty, by 

### 23 taking Property on a discriminatory basis, for no 

### 24 public purpose and without just compensation.” 

### 25 Compl. ¶ 68. 

### 26 27 • “The Defendants have failed to return Property to 

### 28 their rightful owners and have intentionally and 

### 29 wrongfully concealed from the Plaintiffs 

### 30 information about the Property and the value and 

### 31 profits derived theref[rom].” Compl. ¶ 77. 

### 32 33 See also Compl. ¶¶ 27, 30-31, 33-36, 38-39, 41-43, 45-46, 

### 34 48-50. 

### 35 36 The only allegation that references retention of the 

### 37 stolen property (or proceeds) is pleaded in the collective, 

### 38 merging the roles of the original defendants in the taking 

### 39 and retention of the property: 

### 40 41 Defendants have willfully and wrongfully taken, 

### 42 retained and converted the Property and its 

### 43 derivative profits into their own property, and 

### 44 Defendants’ exercise of the rights of ownership 

### 45 and control over the Property were and are 

### 46 inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ rights, were and are5 

### 1 without authorization, and such acts constitute a 

### 2 conversion. 

### 3 4 Compl. ¶ 73. Such collective pleading generally is 

### 5 unremarkable; but here the complaint itself runs counter to 

### 6 the possibility that the stolen property (or any derivative 

### 7 property) remains lodged with SNCF: 

### 8 9 The CDC was the depository for most of the funds 

### 10 spoliated from the Jews and other detainees in the 

### 11 holding camps. The CDC was also the recipient of 

### 12 funds, both during and after the War, arising from 

### 13 the sales and auctions of Jewish Property

. 

### 14 15 Compl. ¶ 20 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 22. 

### 16 17 Plaintiffs’ briefing argues that among various 

### 18 contingencies--loss, destruction, sale, or retention of the 

### 19 stolen property--“the most plausible explanation is that 

### 20 SNCF still has the Property.” But this argument contradicts 

### 21 the thrust of Plaintiffs’ complaint and ignores the roles 

### 22 alleged to have been played by France and the CDC. 

### 23 24 In reviewing the denial of jurisdictional discovery, we 

### 25 consider only whether remand is warranted for jurisdictional 

### 26 discovery as against SNCF. (No appeal is taken from the 

### 27 dismissal of the claims against France and the CDC.) Since, 

### 28 as we conclude above, the claims against SNCF are defeated 

### 29 on the pleadings, we decline to order jurisdictional 

### 30 discovery. 

### 31 32 Plaintiffs forfeited their request for leave to 

### 33 replead. Plaintiffs did not make that request until their 

### 34 appellate reply brief. “We generally do not consider issues 

### 35 raised in a reply brief for the first time because if an 

### 36 appellant raises a new argument in a reply brief an appellee 

### 37 may not have an adequate opportunity to respond to it.” In 

### 38 re Harris, 464 F.3d 263, 268 n.3 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal 

### 39 quotation marks and citations omitted). 

### 40 41 For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of 

### 42 the district court on the ground that SNCF’s foreign 

### 43 sovereign immunity deprived the federal courts of subject 

### 44 matter jurisdiction over this action. We need not, and do 

### 45 not, reach the international comity considerations on which 

### 46 the district court alternatively relied, or any of the other6 

### 1 issues presented on appeal or raised in the district court 

### 2 proceedings. 

### 3 4 5 FOR THE COURT: 

### 6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 7 8

___________________