05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

The Clerk of

Court is inst ructe d to amend the of ficial c aption as set for

th above. * 1 1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T

3 August Term, 2007 4 (Argued: J une 10, 2008 Dec ided: J anuar y 15, 2010 5 Errata Filed: F ebrua ry 9, 2010) 6 Docke t Nos. 05-5612-c v, 05-5310-c v

7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 8 In re A SSI CURAZ I ONI GENERAL I , S.P.A. 9 Dr. Thomas Weiss, Erna Birnba um Gottesman and Mar

tha B irnbaum Young er, 10 Plaintif f-Appellant s, 11 v. 12 Assicura zioni Gene rali, S.p.A., 13 Defendant- Appellee

. 14 Edwar d David, as Per sonal Repre sentative of the Estate of D avid David, 15 Plaintif f-Appellant , 16 v. 17 Assicura zioni Gene rali, S.p.A., 18 Defendant- Appellee

. * 1905 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 2 3 4 5 Be fore : L EVAL , CALAB RESI , and POOL ER, Circuit Judges

. 6 Pla int if

fs a pp e a l f ro m di str ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of the ir su its se e kin gpa

y me nt o f b e ne fi ts 7 on insurance policies purcha sed by their family

members f

rom defe ndant insurer

in the y ear s 8 leadingup to the Holocaust. The United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of New 9 York (Muka sey , J. ) dismissed the suits, relying on American I nsurance Assoc iation v. 10 Garamendi , 539 U.S. 396 (2003), and c oncludingthat plaintiffs’ state- law cla ims were 11 pree mpted by

the fore ign policy

of the United States f

avoringresolution of such c laims in the 12 International Comm ission on Holocaust Era I nsuranc e Claims. The Court of Appe als (L eval, J. ) 13 c on c lud e s th at Ga ra me nd i controls, and a ffirms the judg ment. 14 WI L L IAM M. SHE RN OF F , Sh e rn of f B ida rt & 15 Dar ras, Clare mont, California (Na ncy Sher Cohen, 16 War ri ng ton S. Pa rk e r I I I , Re y

no ld S ie me ns , John C. 17 Ul in, Do ugM. Ke lle r, Pe g g y J. Willi ams, and

Es ta 18 L . Br and, He ller Ehrma n L L P, L awr ence Kill and 19 L inda Ger stel, Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., Robert 20 A. Swift and Joanne Z ack, K ohn, Swift & Gr af, 21 P.C., C ary n Be cker , L ieff, Ca

brase r, He imann & 22 Berns tei n, L L P , J oel Co henandEv angel in e F. 2 3 G ar r i s , S h e r n o f f B i d art& D ar

r a s , S amu e l J. 24 Du bb in, Du bb in & Kr ave tz, L L P, T ho ma s R. F ahl, 25 Flanne r, Stack & Fa hl L L P, on the brief

), for 26 Ap pe lla nts . 27 SAM UE LJ. DU B B I N, Du bb in & Kr ave tz, L L P, 28 Miami, Florida, for Ap pe lla nts Dr . Th om as W

e iss , 29 Erna Birnbaum Gottesman, and Martha Birnbaum 30 Y ounger . 31 TH OM AS R . F AH L , F lann e r, Sta c k & F ahl L L P, 32 Br ookfield, Wisconsin, for Ap pe lla nt E dwa rd 33 Da v id

.05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

3 1 MARCO E. SC HNAB L , Skadden, Ar ps, Slate, 2 Meagher & Flom L L P, New Yor k, New Y ork 3 (Ke nneth J . Bia lkin, Bar ry H. Gar finkel, Peter 4 Sims hauser , and L ance A. Etche verr y , Skadden, 5 Arp s, S lat e, M eagher & Flo m L L P , Fran kl inB. 6 Velie, Sullivan & Worc ester L L P, on the brief ), for 7 Appellee

. 8 Sharon Swing le, Attorney , United States 9 De pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e , Ci vil Di vis ion , App e llate 1 0 S t a f f , W a s h i n g t o n , D

. C

. ( J o h nB

. B e l l i n g e r , III , 11 L eg al Adviser, United States Depa rtment of State, 12 Gr e g or y G. Katsa s, As sis tant Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l, 13 Mark B . Stern and B enjamin M. Shultz , Attorney s, 14 De pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e , Ci vil Di vis ion , App e llate 15 Staff, on the brief ), for Amicus Curiae United States 16 of Amer ica. 17 Be njamin M. Shul tz, Att orney , United States 18 De pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e , Ci vil Di vis ion , App e llate 19 Staff, Washing ton, D.C. (Har old Hong ju Koh, L eg al 20 Adviser, United States D epar tment of State, Tony 21 West, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, Pree t Bha

rar a, 22 United States Attorney for the Souther

n District of 23 New Y ork, David S. J ones, Assistant United States 24 Attorney , Mark B . Stern and Sharon Swing le, 25 Attorney s, United States Depa rtment of Just ice, 26 Civil Division, Appellate Staff, on thebr ie fs ), for 27 Amicus Curiae United States of Amer ica. 28 Ye vg e ny Gure vic h, Un ite d St ate s Co ngre ss, 29 Commi ttee for For eig n Affa irs, Washington, D.C., 30 for Amici Curiae Represe ntatives Ros-L ehtinen, 31 Wexle r, and Cha bo t. 32 Michae l D. Ramsey , University of San Dieg o L aw 33 School, San Dieg o, California, for Amici Curiae 3 4 P ro fe s s o rs o f C o n s t i tut i o n al L aw an d Fo re i gn 35 Re latio ns L aw o f t he Un ite d St ate s.05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

4 1 L EVAL , Circuit Judge : 2 Plaintiffs Dr. Thomas Weiss, Erna B irnbaum Gottesman, a nd Martha B irnbaum Young er 3 (“the Weiss P laintiffs”) a nd Plaintiff Edward D avid (“ David”) appea l from the judg ment of the 4 United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Muka sey , J. ), which 5 dis mis se d th e ir

c la ims . Pl a int if

fs are be ne fi c iari e s o f i ns ur anc e po lic ie s p ur c ha se d b y the ir 6 ance stors in the y ear s leadingup to the Holocaust fr om Defe ndant Assicurazioni Gene rali, S.p.A. 7 (“G ener ali”), a

n I talian insuranc e compa ny . Plaintiffs broug ht state-law c laims alleg ing br eac h 8 of the insura

nce c ontrac ts, based on Ge nera li’s refusa l to pay benef its under those policies. 9 These c ases a

nd others we re c onsolidated for pr e-tria l proce eding s. The district cour t gr anted 10 Gene rali’s motion to dismi ss based on the Supre me Court’s dec ision in American I nsurance 11 Association v. Garamendi , 5 39 U. S. 3 96 (2 00 3) , whic h h e ld t hat th e Pla int if

fs ’ s tate -l aw c la ims 12 we re pr e e mpt e d b y the fo re ig n p oli c y

of the Un ite d St ate s, wh ic h f avo rs re so lut ion

of Ho loc a us t13 e ra

ins ur anc e c la ims in t

he Inte rn atio na l Co mmi ssi on on Ho loc a us t E ra Ins ur anc e Cla ims 14 (“I CHEI C”), an inter national claims re solution orga nization founded by

private insura

nce 15 c omp anie s and

su pp or te d b y the Un ite d St ate s a

nd oth e r f or e ign g ov e rnme nt e nti tie s. B e c a us e 16 we a g re e wi th t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

that Garamendic ontr ols thi s c a se , w e a ff ir m. 17 BACK GR OUND 18 Gene rali wa s founded by J ewish merc hants in 1831 in Trieste, Italy . In the time betwee n 19 World W ar I

and World War I I , Gene rali oper ated in Austria, Hung ary , Cz echoslovakia, Poland,05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

5 1 and Yug oslavia. In the late be tween- Wars period, many families purc hased insura nce policie s 2 from Ge nera li believing this would provide pr otection ag ainst the rise of N azi power. Ac cording 3 to the complaints, Gene rali betra y ed the policy

holders by

cooper atingwith the Nazi reg ime and 4 ref using to pa

y the bene ficiar ies of the insura nce policie s purcha sed by J ews a nd other pe rsec uted 5 minorities. 6 After

World W ar I I , when the vic torious Western Allies took steps to reestablish the 7 so ve re ig nty

of the de fe ate d G e rm any , th e re wa s a c on c e rn that r e pa ra tio ns wo uld

e c on omi c a lly 8 cripple the new F eder al Republic of Ge rmany . Garamendi , 539 U.S. at 403. In the L ondon Debt 9 Agre e me nt, the a lli e s a g re e d to “ put of f c on sid e ratio n o f c la ims ari sin gout of the se c on d Wo rl d 10 War . . . until the final settlement of the pr oblem of re paration.” Id. at 403-04 (inter nal quotation 11 mark s and

br a c ke ts o mitte d) . N otw ith sta nd ingthi s mo rator ium , th e Ge rm an g ov e rnme nt p a id 12 out over 100 billion Deutsche ma rks in repa

rations as of 2000. Id. at 40 4. Th os e pa youts, 13 howeve r, did not cover cer tain claimants and c erta in ty pes of c laims. Id. In 1996, the Ger man 14 courts interpr eted the tr eaty reunify ing E ast and West Ger

many as “liftingthe L ondon Debt 15 Ag ree ment’s moratorium on Holoca ust claims by

fore ign na

tionals.” Id. at 40 5. Af

te r t his 16 de c isi on , ma

ny laws uit s th at c ou ld n ot h ave be e n b ro ught p re vio us ly we re fi le d a g a ins t 17 companies doingbusiness in Germany duringthe Nazi era

. 18 In J uly

2000, the United States announc ed an a g ree ment with Germa ny in which the 19 Ge rm an g ov e rnme nt a g re e d to e na c t le g isl atio n to e sta bli sha fo un datio n th at w ou ld b e us e d to 20 compensate all victims who suffer ed at the ha nds of Ger

man companie s duringthe Nazi era

. Id.05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

6 1 In r e tur

n, the Un ite d St ate s a g re e d th at whe ne ve r a Ge rm an c omp any

wa s su e d o n a

Ho loc a us t2 e ra

c la im i n a

n A me ri c an ( state or

fe de ra l) c ourt , th e g ov e rnme nt o f t he Un ite d St ate s w ou ld 3 submit a statement of intere st to the court explaining that “it would be in the f oreign policy 4 interests of the United States for the [Ger man] Foundation to be the e x clusive for um and re medy 5 fo r t

he re so lut ion

of a ll a sse rt e d c la ims a g a ins t G e rm an c omp anie s a ri sin gfr om t

he ir 6 involvement in the National Socialist era and World War I I .” Garamendi , 539 U.S. at 406 7 (interna l quotation marks omitted) (quoting 39 I nt’l L eg al Mater ials 1298, 1303 (2000)). T he 8 “Ge rman F oundation pact” was a model for similar agree ments with Austria and F ranc e. The re 9 w a s h o w e v e r , n o s i m i l ar a g r e e m e n tw i thIt a l y. 10 Wit h respe ct to insurance claims, the agree ment specifie d that the Ger man foundation 11 would work with the I CHEI C to handle insuranc e cla ims. The I CHEI C was forme d in 1998 by 12 “seve ral Eur opean insura nce c ompanies, the State of I srae l, J ewish and H olocaust survivor 13 associations, and the National Association of Insuranc e Commissi oners,” id. at 40 6- 07 , to 14 ne g oti ate wi th E ur op e an in sure rs to p ro vid e inf or matio n a bo ut u np a id p oli c ie s is su e d to 15 Ho loc a

us t vi c tim s b e tw e e n 1 92 0 a nd 19 45 , a nd to s e ttl e any

c la ims that aro se in t

he Ho loc a

us t 16 e ra

un de r t he se po lic ie s, id. at 407; I CHEI C, Memorandum of Unde rstanding¶ 4 (Aug . 25, 17 1998), av ail

ab leat http:// www.iche ic.org/pdf/I CHEI C_MOU.PDF. To date appr ox imately $300 18 milli on dollars have been of fer ed or a war ded to more tha

n 48,000 claimants as a

result of the 19 I CHEI C process. SeeI CHEI C, http: //www.icheic .org(last visited Dec . 17, 2009). 20 P ROCEDURAL HISTORY05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

7 1 The Weiss Plainti ffs filed suit in Florida state cour

t, which Gene rali re moved to fede ral 2 court. Da

vid filed suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Both c omplaints sought damag es for 3 unpaid insuranc e cla ims under policies issued by Gene rali betwe en 1920 and 1941. I n November 4 2000, these suits, toge ther with numerous othe rs, wer e tra nsfer red by the J udicial Panel on 5 Multidi strict L itigation to the district cour t for the Southern D istrict of NewYork for 6 consolidated pre -trial proc eeding s. In an initial opinion, is sued prior to the Supre me Court’s 7 decision in Garamendi , the district court de nied Gene rali’s motion to dismi ss on forum non 8 c on v e nie ns g ro un ds

. In re Assicurazioni Gene rali S.p.A. Holocaust Ins. Lit ig. , 228 F. Supp. 2d 9 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 10 In 2003, the Supreme Court de cided Garamendi . In that case , a tra de assoc iation and a 11 g roup of insura

nce c ompanies, includingGene rali, brought suit seeking to e njoin enforc ement of 12 Ca lif

or nia ’s Ho loc a

us t V ic timIns ur anc e Re lie f A c t ( “ HV I RA ” ), wh ic h r e qu ir e d in sure rs to 13 disclose the deta ils of insurance policies sold in Europe betwe en 1920 and 1945 or fac e 14 suspension of its license to do business in the state. Garamendi , 539 U.S. at 409-10. The United 15 States filed an amicus brief stating a s its foreig n policy that the I CHEI C should be the exclusive 16 reme dy

for insura

nce c laims based on policies fr om the Holocaust e ra. B rief of the United States 17 a s Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 2-3, Garamendi , 533 U.S. 396 (No. 02-722) , 2003 18 WL721754. The Supreme Court ruled that the HV I RA interfe red w ith and was ther efor e 19 pree mpted by

the fore ign policy

of the United States to “e ncoura g e Europe an insurer s to work 20 with the I CHEI C to develop ac cepta ble claim proc edure s, including pr ocedur es g overning05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

After further proce eding s, approva l of that settlement was a ffirme d by our cour t. Ru bin 1 v. Assicuazioni Gene rali S.p.A. , 290 F. App’ x 376 (2d Cir. 2008). 8 1 disclosure of policy information.” Id. at 421. 2 Relying on Garamendi , the district court dismissed all actions in Octobe r 2004. In re 3 Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Ins. Litig. , 340 F. Supp. 2d 494 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) . Eac h 4 p l ai n t i ff

fi l eda s ep ar at e ap p ea l

. T h e c l as s ac t i o np l ai n t i ff s i nth e c o n s o l i d at edp ro ce ed i n gs 5 enter ed into a settlement a g ree ment with Gener ali. We then stay ed all the r emainingappea ls. 1 6 In re Assicurazioni Gene rali, S.p.A. , No. 05-5602-c v et al

. ( 2 d C i r . S e p t . 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( o r d e r )

. In 7 November

2007, we lifted the stay

on the appe als by

the plaintiffs in the ninetee n rema ining 8 non-cla ss action ca ses. In re Assicurazioni Gene rali S.p.A. , No. 04-6161-c v e t al

. (2d Cir. Nov. 9 7, 2007) (or der)

. 10 After

oral a rgument, we r equeste d the advice of Secr etar y of State Condoleezza Rice “on 11 the qu e sti on

wh e the r c ourt

a dju dic atio n o f [the ] Ho loc a us t e ra c la ims a g a ins t G e ne ra li w ou ld 12 conflict with the for eig n policy of the United States.” In re Assicurazioni Gene rali S.p.A. , No. 13 05-5602-c v e t al

. (2d Cir. Aug . 1, 2008) (letter). The G overnme nt responded that “[i] t has bee n 14 and continues to be the fore ign policy of the United States that the [I CHEI C] should be reg arde d 15 a s th e e xclu siv e fo rum and re me dy fo r c la ims wi thi n it s p ur

vie w” and

that c la ims a g a ins t 16 Ge ne ra li, a s “ on e of the or ig ina l I CH EI C c omp a nie s a nd an a c tiv e pa

rt ic ipa nt i n it s o pe ratio ns , 17 fa ll w ith in t

he c ate g or

y Un ite d St ate s p oli c y

se e ks to a dd

re ss. ” L e tte r o f S ha

ro n Sw ing le , O c t. 18 30, 2008 (“Swing le L etter” ), at 1. B eca use of the possibility

of cha ng e of f oreign policy

afte r the05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

9 1 int e rv e nin gc ha

ng e of a dmi nis tr atio n in

20 09 , w e the n in qu ir e d o f t he ne w Se c re tary

of State 2 Hillary

Rodham Clint on whether , in the new a dminist ration, the for eig n policy of the United 3 States continued uncha ng ed, In re Assicurazioni Gene rali S.p.A. , Nos. 05-5612-c v, 05-5310-c v 4 (2d Cir. J uly

29, 2009) (letter), and r ece ived a r esponse that the position of the United States 5 “continues to be that set out in [ its] orig inal letter brie f,” L etter of Be njamin M. Shul tz, Oct. 27, 6 2009 (“Shultz L etter” ), at 1. In Marc h 2009, all plaintiffs other than the Weiss P laintiffs and 7 David settled with Ge nera li, and their appe als wer e dismissed. In reAs sic uraz ion i G e ne ra li 8 S.p.A. , No. 05-5612-c v e t al

. (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2009) (orde r). 9 DI SCU SSIO N 10 We review de novo a district cour t’s application of pr eemption principles. Premium 11 Mortgage Corp. v. Equifax, Inc

. , 583 F.3d 103, 106 ( 2d Cir. 2009). 12 I . A pp li c a bi li t yo f Garam endi 13 In Garamendi , th e S u p re m e C o urtex p l ai n edth ats t at e l aw “m u s tgi v e w ay ” t o th e f o re i gn 14 policy

of the United States, a s set by the President, whe re the re is “e vidence of cle ar c onflict 15 betwee n the policies adopte d by the two.” Garamendi , 539 U.S. at 420-21. B ased on the amicus 16 brief of

the United States and state ments made duringneg otiations between the United States and 17 Ger

many , Austria, and F ranc e re g ardingHolocaust-e ra insura nce c laims, the Court concluded 18 that the “c onsistent Presidential foreign policy has bee n to encour ag e Europe an g overnme nts and 19 c omp anie s to vo lunte e r s e ttl e me nt f un ds in p re fe re nc e to l iti g atio n o r c oe rc ive sa nc tio ns ,” and , in 20 the ins ur anc e c onte xt spe c if ic a lly , “ to e nc oura g e Euro pe an in sure rs to w or k w iththe I CH EI C to05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

10 1 develop a cce ptable cla im procedur es.” Id. at 421. 2 California’s H VI RA, “by makingexclusion from a larg e sec tor of the Ame rica n insurance 3 marke t the automatic sanc tion for noncompliance with the State’s own policies on disclosure ,” 4 wh ic h r e qu ir e d b ro a de r d isc los ur e tha n th e I CH EI C, “ un de rc ut[] th e Pr e sid e nt’ s d ipl omatic 5 discretion and the choice he . . . made in exercising it.” Id. at 423-24. B eca use enf orce ment of 6 the California la

w would mean that the President could not wield the f ull “‘coe rcive power

of the 7 national ec onomy ’” a s a tool of diplomacy in neg otiating a

proce ss for settlingclaims, the Court 8 conclude d that the HVI RA “‘c ompromise[d] the ver y capa city of the Preside nt to speak for the 9 Nation with one voice in dealingwith other g overnme nts’ to resolve c laims ag ainst Europea n 10 companies a

rising out of

World W ar I I .” Id. at4 2 4 (qu o t i n g Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade 11 Cou nc il , 530 U.S. 363, 377, 381 (2000)). 12 Garamendiinvolved only disclosure re quirements. The HVI RA’s disclosure 13 require ment, althoug h not directly in conflict with g overnme nt’s policy to encour ag e use of

the 14 I CHEI C to resolve Holoca ust-era insurance claims, nonethele ss undermined the G overnme nt’s 15 objective by

“thwar ting the G overnme nt’s policy of re pose for

companies that pay

throug h the 16 I CHEI C” and by

underc utting priva cy

protec tions of Europea

n allies. Id. at 425. The Court 17 the re fo re fo un d it su ff ic ie ntl y dis ru pti ve to j us tif

y pr e e mpt ion . T he c a se s b e fo re us , in c ontr a st, 18 e sse nti a lly

se e k e nf or c e me nt o f t

he pla int if

fs ’ c la ime d c ontr a c t r ights a g a ins t G e ne ra li und e r s tate 19 law. Unlike the H VI RA’s disclosure r equire ment, whose e ffe ct on fore ign policy is only oblique, 20 such law suits are dire c tly in conflict with the Gove rnment’s policy that claims should be05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

We find nothing inconsistent with this posit ion in the refe renc e in Mede llin v. Texas , 128 2 S. Ct . 1346 (2008), to “c ases in which [the Supreme Court] has upheld the a uthority of the President to settle fore ign c laims pursuant to an executive a g ree ment

. ” Id . at 1371. 11 1 resolved e x clusively throug h the I CHEI C. I f, as the Supre me Court held in Garamendi , a state 2 disclosure re quirement c onflicts sufficie ntly to be pre empted by

the national for eig n policy of 3 channe ling Holoc aust-er a insuranc e cla ims through the I CHEI C, then, a fo rti or i , a state law s uit 4 to e nf

or c e a Ho loc a us t- e ra ins ur anc e c la im i s p re e mpt e d b y that po lic y , a s w e ll. 5 Plaintiffs put forwar d sever al ar guments in an eff ort to distinguish Garamendi . First, they 6 point out that Genera li is an I talian company and that Italy , unlike Ger many , Austria, and F ranc e, 7 has not enter ed an e x ecutive a g ree ment with the President of the United States reg ardingthe 8 proce ssing of

Holocaust-e ra insura

nce c laims. The Court in Garamendi, howeve r, did not find 9 th atth e U n i t edS t at es p o l i cy o f e n co ura gi n g re s o l ut i o no f H o l o cau s t -e rai n s uran ce cl ai m s th ro u gh 10 the I CHEI C depende d on the exist ence of executive a g ree ments. Rather, the Court view ed the 11 e xec uti ve a g re e me nts a s th e pr od uc t of the po lic y . T he a g re e me nts , a nd state me nts of

int e re st 12 issued by

the Gover

nment pursuant to them, illustrate or e x press the national positi on, rathe r than 13 define it. See, e .g. , id. at 421-22 (stating that the a g ree ments “illustrate” a nd “express[] ” the 14 President’s policy , and quotingstatements of off icials reg ardingthe policy underly ing the 15 agree ments, in describing“evide nce” of the policy ). A fur ther indication that the Court did not 16 view the e x istence of an executive a g ree ment as a pr ere quisite is that Genera li was one of the 17 plaintiffs in Garamendi , and wa s not ex cluded f rom the judg ment on the g round that it is an 18 I ta lia

n c omp any

and I ta ly is n ot p art

y to a n e xec uti ve a g re e me nt. 205 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

12 1 In a

ny e ve nt, to e ra se any

su c h d ou bt, we so lic ite d th e a dv ic e of the Se c re tary

of State (i n 2 two administrations) on the fore ign policy of the United States. The Gover nment has twice made 3 perf

ectly clea r that “[i] t has bee n and continues to be the fore ign policy of the United States that 4 the [I CH EI C] sh ou ld b e re g ard e d a s th e e xclu siv e fo rum and re me dy fo r c la ims wi thi n it s 5 purv ie w, ” and

that th is p oli c y

a pp lie s to c la ims a g a ins t G e ne ra li. Shu ltz L e tte r at 1; Swi ng le 6 L etter at 1. 7 Plaintiffs nex t argue that strongstate intere sts underlie the law s that form the ba sis for 8 their suit, and there fore , unlike in Garamendi , th e ba la nc e be tw e e n s tate and

fe de ra l po lic y

tip s in 9 their fa

vor. This argument is premised on a misunder standingof Garamendiand pre emption 10 law. As the Ga ra me nd i Court rea ffirme d, “[an] ex press fe dera l policy and [a] clear c onflict 11 raised by

[a] state statute ar e alone enough to require state law to y ield.” Garamendi , 539 U.S. at 12 425. The Court we nt on to note that, if the conflict we re le ss clear , it would neverthe less be 13 re so lve d in

the fe de ra l g ov e rnme nt’ s f avo r b e c a us e of the we akn e ss o f t

he state ’s int e re st i n 14 regulating disc losure of H olocaust-e ra insura nce policie s. Id. In this case, the c onflict betwe en 15 the fe dera l policy that the I CHEI C should be the exclusive forum for r esolvingHolocaust-e ra 16 insurance claims and Plaintiffs’ attempt to adjudicate their H olocaust-e ra insura nce c laims under 17 state law is eve n more c lear than the conf

lict in Garamendi , which involved only a disclosure 18 re qu ir e me nt, and no t a state law s uit

to e nf or c e the ins ur anc e c la im. Th e state law mus t yie ld t o 19 the fe dera l policy , reg ardle ss of the importance of the intere sts behind the state law. 20 Finally , Plaintiffs point outthat the I CHEI C’s Dec ember 31, 2003 deadline f

or ac cepting05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

In any event, it is appar ently

not entirely

corr ect that the I CHEI C process is closed. T he 3 Go ve rnme nt’ s le tte r i nf

or ms u s th at G e ne ra li a

nd oth e r I CH EI C pa

rt ic ipa nts have a g re e d to continue proc essingclaims ac cordingto the relax ed standa rds of proof

develope d by

the I CHEI C. Shul tz L etter, at 4-5 13 1 claims has passe d, so that dismis sal of their c laims will deny them the opportunity

to pursue 2 those claims in any forum. This ar gument is premised on a misunder standingof the 3 Gover

nment’s policy . As the Gove rnment made clea r in its letters to the court, “ [i ]twas ne ver 4 the fore ign policy

of the United States that c laims should merely be held in abe y ance pending 5 c o n c l u s i o no f

th e IC H E IC p r o c e s s . ” S w i n g l e Le tt e r , at8

. T h e p o l i c y i s r ath e r th atth e IC H E IC 6 “should be re g arde d as the exc lusive forum and r emedy for c laims with it s purview.” Id. at 1 7 (empha sis added). Per mitti ngstate-law

claims to proce ed now that I CHEI C has cea sed 8 operations directly conflicts with that policy g oal. See id. at 8 (“ [I ]twould undermine f uture 9 e ff or ts t o s e c ur e vo luntary

c omp e ns atio n a g re e me nts if I CH EI C pa

rt ic ipa nts be c ame su

bje c t to 10 litigation as soon as I CHEI C had conc luded.”) ; Shult z L etter, at 5. I f the I CHEI C door has 11 closed on plaintiffs, it is beca use they chose to a llow it to close. 3 12 Acc ording ly , we hold under authority of Garamendithat Pla int if fs ’ c la ims , whic h f

a ll 13 within the scope of the I CHEI C process, a re pr eempted by

the fore ign policy

of the United States. 14 II. The We iss P lai nt iffs’ M ot ion to Am e nd 15 The Weiss Plainti ffs a rgue that the district cour t erre d in denying the ir motion after 16 judgme nt to amend their c omplaint to add a claim under the Racke teer ing I

nfluenc ed and Corr

upt 17 Org anizations Act (“RI CO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq . The filingof an a mended c omplaint is not05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

14 1 pe rm iss ibl e on c e a jud g me nt i s e nte re d unle ss t he jud g me nt i s se t a sid e or va c ate d p ur su ant t o 2 Rule 59 of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. Nat ’l Pe tro c he mi c al C

o. of I ra n v . M /T S tol t 3 Sheaf

, 930 F.2d 240, 244 ( 2d Cir. 1991). A district court’ s denial of a Rule 59 motion t o alter or 4 amend a

judgme nt is reviewe d for a buse of discr etion. See State Trading Corp. of India, Ltd. v. 5 As su ra nc e

fore ninge n S

k uld, 921 F.2d 409, 418 ( 2d Cir. 1990). When the plaintiff had the 6 op po rt

un ity to a me nd the c omp la int

e arl ie r b ut w a ite d unti l a ft e r j ud g me nt, a c ourt may “ e xer c ise 7 its discretion more exacting ly .” Id. Gene rally , district courts will only amend or alter a judgme nt 8 pursuant to Rule 59 “to cor rec t a clea

r er ror of law or pr event manif

est injustice.” Munafo v. 9 Metro. Transp. Auth. , 381 F.3d 99, 105 ( 2d Cir. 2004) (interna l quotation marks omitted). 10 The Weiss Plainti ffs g ive no g ood rea son for fa iling to see k leave to amend ea rlier in the 11 case . Indeed, the rec ord indicate s that they contemplated a dding a

RI CO claim at lea st three 12 y e ars be fo re the c ourt e nte re d ju dg me nt. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a c te d w e ll w ith in i ts d isc re tio n in 13 denying the motion. 14 III. David’s Allegation of a Cancelled P olicy 15 In his brief on a ppeal, Da vid contends that his complaint shows that his ance stor’s 1 6 i n s ur an c e p o l i c y

w a s “ c an c e l l e d

p r i o r t o th e H o l o c a

u s tE r a a s th ate r a

i s d e f i n e d b y th e IC H E IC 17 rules” a

nd there fore his claim was not elig ible for a djudication by the I CHEI C. Although the 18 I CHEI C ge nera lly cover s claims based on policie s sold between 1920 a nd 1945, it does not cover 19 c la ims ba se d o n p oli c ie s th at w e re c anc e lle d p ri or to t he sta rt of the “ Ho loc a

us t e ra ” a s d e fi ne d in 20 its claims-proce ssing r ules. See I CHEI C, ProcessingGuide, at 32, 46 ( J une 22, 2003), av ail ab le05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

15 1 at http:// www.iche ic.org/pdf/I CHEI C_CP G.pdf. The I CHEI C ProcessingGuide identifies the 2 start of the H olocaust er a in Poland, wher e David’s ance stor lived, as 1939. Id. at 51. The 3 United States, in its first letter to this court, noted that adjudication of a lawsuit arisingout of an 4 insurance policy

canc elled bef

ore the Holocaust e ra ( as def ined by the I CHEI C) does not conflict 5 with foreign policy . Swingle L etter, at 9 n.5. 6 Da

vid ’s c omp la int

is unc le ar a s to po te nti a lly de te rm inativ e a sp e c ts o f t he tim ingof

his 7 ance stor’s death and the duration of the insuranc e policy . The c omplaint alleg es that David’s 8 insured anc estor “die d in a conc entration camp as the r esult of ac tions of Nazi Germany” and that 9 “the policy

was in full forc e and e ffe ct and a ll premiums were curr ent at the time of his death,” 10 wh ile a lso a lle g ingthat G e ne ra li a dv ise d D avid in 1 99 9 th at th e po lic y

wa s c anc e lle d “ so me tim e 11 prior to 1936.” The re is no cle ar a lleg ation that David’s c laim falls outside the Holoca ust era a s 1 2 d e f

i n e d b y th e IC H E IC an d

th e r e f o r e w a s n o ts u

b j e c tt o a d j u d i c at i o nb y th atb o dy. A c c o r d i n g l y, 13 we a ffirm the district c ourt’s dismissal of the complaint. On the other hand, it may

be that the 1 4 c la im , a lt

h o u g hin artf

u ll y p le a d e d , in

f a c t f a ll s o uts id e th e s c o p e o f

th e I CH E I C p r o c e s s . We 15 ins tr

uc t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

to p e rm it D avid

to r e ple a d if

, c on sis te nt w iththe re qu ir e me nts of Rul e 16 11 of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure, he is able to plead a claim that fa lls outsi de the sc ope 17 of the I CHEI C.05 - 56 12 - cv, 05-531 0-cv

In r e A ssic u r a z io n i G e n e r a li

16 1 CO NC LU SION 2 For

the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM the judgment of the district court. With respec t 3 to P la int if

f D avid , th e dis tr ic t c ourt is i ns tr uc te d to pe rm it the fi lin gof an ame nd e d c omp la int , if 4 the new ple adingconfor ms to the require ment set forth in this opinion.