Court Opinion

ID: 9408314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 15:01:00.263399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.207275
License: Public Domain

22-424-cv(L)
The branch of Citibank, N.A., established in the Republic of Argentina v. De Nevares

                                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                            August Term 2022

                  (Argued: March 16, 2023                      Decided: July 12, 2023)

                                 Docket Nos. 22-424-cv, 22-1083-cv

    THE BRANCH OF CITIBANK, N.A., ESTABLISHED IN THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA,

                                                                                       Petitioner-Appellee,

                                                        v.

                                       ALEJANDRO DE NEVARES,

                                                                                Respondent-Appellant. 1

                    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

                      Before:           LEVAL, CHIN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

1
        The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the oﬃcial case caption as
set forth above.
             Appeals from various orders of the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.). Respondent-appellant is a

former employee who won a judgment in Argentina's National Court of Labor

Appeals against Citibank, N.A. Petitioner-appellee, the Argentinian branch of

Citibank, N.A., filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration

Association and brought the proceedings below. The district court compelled

arbitration, preliminarily enjoined the employee from enforcing the Argentinian

judgment against petitioner-appellee, and held respondent-appellant in

contempt of court. It also denied his motion to dismiss. We conclude that the

district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the

Argentinian branch did not establish that it has legal existence separate from

Citibank, N.A., and because Citibank, N.A., did not seek to substitute itself for

the branch as the real party in interest.

             REVERSED AND REMANDED.

                          ROBERT L. SILLS (Ryan R. Adelsperger, on the brief),
                               Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New
                               York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellee.

                          GARY TRACHTEN (David N. Saponara, on the brief),
                               Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner LLP, New York,
                               NY, for Respondent-Appellant.

                                            2
CHIN, Circuit Judge:

             In this case, respondent-appellant Alejandro De Nevares obtained a

judgment (the "Argentinian Judgment") in the Republic of Argentina against his

former employer, Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank"). Petitioner-appellee -- "The branch

of Citibank, N.A., established in the Republic of Argentina" (the "Branch") --

brought this action below to compel arbitration and enjoin De Nevares from

taking steps to enforce the Argentinian Judgment against the Branch. The district

court ruled in favor of the Branch. We hold that the Branch has not carried its

burden of demonstrating that it enjoys separate legal existence from the

corporate entity, Citibank. Although Citibank is the real party in interest, it did

not seek to substitute itself for the Branch. Because this action has therefore

lacked adverse parties, it has not presented a case or controversy within the

jurisdiction of the federal courts, as established by Article III of the U.S.

Constitution. The district court therefore did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

We REVERSE the district court's orders and REMAND with instructions to

dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

                                           3
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I.    The Facts

             The parties generally do not contest the facts underlying their

dispute. De Nevares, an Argentinian citizen, began working at the Branch,

which is located in Buenos Aires, in 1992. In 1994, he was transferred from the

Branch to Citicorp Capital Markets, S.A., also in Buenos Aires. In connection

with that transfer, De Nevares did not execute a resignation or release. In 2003,

Citibank oﬀered De Nevares a transfer to a position in its New York oﬃce, where

he would work as a "Vice President, Level U" within the Emerging Markets Sales

and Trading group. J. App'x at 96. The position was to begin in January 2004.

De Nevares accepted the transfer and, in accordance with company policy,

resigned his position with Citicorp Capital Markets, S.A. He also executed a

release stating, in relevant part, that (1) the Branch and "Citibank, N.A[.,] New

York Branch" are diﬀerent employers and (2) he would not have legal recourse

against the Branch for any damages related to his employment in New York. Id.

at 101.

             Upon starting work in New York, De Nevares signed an

employment agreement containing an arbitration clause. The clause provided, in

                                         4
relevant part, that "all disputes based on legally protected rights . . . that may

arise between [De Nevares] and Citigroup Inc. or its parent, aﬃliates, oﬃcers,

directors, employees[,] and agents" would be submitted to binding arbitration.

Id. at 81. 2 De Nevares also acknowledged receipt of Citigroup's employee

handbook, which contained an "Employment Arbitration Policy" providing that

arbitration is "the required and exclusive forum for the resolution of all

employment disputes based on legally protected rights." Id. at 109, 486.

             In 2007, Citibank terminated De Nevares's employment. It oﬀered

him, but he refused, a separation agreement under which, in return for executing

a general release of claims against Citibank, he would have been paid the

equivalent of approximately fourteen months' salary.

             Instead, in 2009, De Nevares sued Citibank in Argentina, alleging

that, under Argentinian law, he was entitled to severance pay after he was

wrongly refused reinstatement of his employment in Argentina following the

termination of his employment in New York. When De Nevares attempted to

serve process on the Branch, the Argentinian trial court ruled that only Citibank,

and not the Branch, was a party to the case.

2
      Citibank is a subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. ("Citigroup"), a Delaware corporation,
and Citicorp Capital Markets, S.A., is an aﬃliate of Citibank.

                                            5
             The proceedings moved slowly. Not until May 2021, twelve years

after commencing litigation, did De Nevares prevail in Chamber VIII of the

National Court of Labor Appeals (the "Labor Appeals Court"), which, reversing

the trial court, concluded that the Branch and Citibank "were a single entity" and

that De Nevares's employment agreement with them constituted "a single

contract." Id. at 230. 3 Moreover, the court held, De Nevares's 2003 resignation

and release were invalid because they were a "pretense imposed by the real

employer." Id. The court issued the Argentinian Judgment and awarded De

Nevares an amount originally close to four million U.S. dollars. With fees and

interest, by the time Citibank commenced the present action, the amount due

under the Argentinian Judgment had risen to some $9.5 million. Under

Argentinian law, De Nevares's local counsel and expert translator are entitled to

enforce in their own right the portions of the Argentinian Judgment that are due

to them -- approximately $1.7 million for his counsel and approximately $450,000

for his expert translator.

3
       All quotations of text originally in Spanish are from the certiﬁed English
translations included in the parties' Joint Appendix.

                                            6
II.   Proceedings Below

      A.    The Arbitration Demand, Petition to Compel Arbitration, and
            Temporary Restraining Order

            On July 16, 2021, the Branch ﬁled a Demand for Arbitration with the

American Arbitration Association, pursuant to the employment agreement

between Citibank and De Nevares. The Branch sought, inter alia, declarations

that (1) De Nevares's 2003 resignation and release are binding, precluding him

from seeking damages from the Branch for alleged injuries arising out of the

termination of his employment with Citibank in New York, and (2) any judgment

issued against Citibank may not be enforced against the Branch.

            The same day, the Branch ﬁled in the Southern District of New York

a petition to compel arbitration under De Nevares's agreements with Citibank

(the "Petition"). The Branch alleged that "De Nevares is virtually certain to seek

enforcement of the [Argentinian J]udgment . . . against [the Branch]" and that he

"has manifested an unambiguous intent not to arbitrate with [the Branch]." Id. at

17-18. The Branch sought an injunction compelling arbitration and prohibiting

De Nevares from initiating or prosecuting litigation or attempting to enforce the

Argentinian Judgment against the Branch.

                                         7
             At the same time it ﬁled the Petition, the Branch moved ex parte in

the district court for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause

why a preliminary injunction should not be entered. The district court held oral

argument July 23, 2021, on the request for a temporary restraining order. In a

post-argument letter, De Nevares contended that the district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over the Petition because the Branch does not enjoy legal

existence separate from Citibank. The district court entered a temporary

restraining order July 31, 2021, prohibiting De Nevares "from enforcing, or

attempting to enforce, the [Argentinian] Judgment against [the Branch] or any of

its assets." Id. at 215. The order speciﬁcally restrained De Nevares from arguing

that the Branch and Citibank "are not separate entities." Id. at 216. The order also

provided that "[t]he foregoing restraint does not include any eﬀort to enforce the

[Argentinian] Judgment against [Citibank] directly." Id.

             On August 19, 2021, De Nevares moved in the district court to

dismiss the Petition. He argued that (1) the Branch is an illusory party without

capacity to sue and, therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction;

(2) there was no valid arbitration agreement between De Nevares and Citibank;

(3) the district court should dismiss the Petition under the doctrine of forum non

                                          8
conveniens; and (4) the Branch had not met the standard for a preliminary

injunction.

              On February 13, 2022, the district court entered an order compelling

arbitration, granting the Branch's motion for a preliminary injunction, and

denying De Nevares's motion to dismiss.

      B.      Subsequent Proceedings in Argentina

              While the temporary restraining order was in force and the parties'

motions were pending, De Nevares's Argentinian counsel and expert translator

sought to enforce their respective portions of the Argentinian Judgment. In

Argentina, they initiated proceedings to execute against Citibank assets held in

an account at the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic. On October 29, 2021,

Citibank moved in Argentina's National Labor Court of First Instance (the "Labor

Trial Court") to block execution of those portions of the Argentinian Judgment,

contending that the funds in question belonged to the Branch, not Citibank.

              On November 1, 2021, the Labor Trial Court ruled that De Nevares's

counsel and expert translator were entitled to execute against Citibank in

Argentina. Because the court's ruling was ambiguous as to whether the Branch

and Citibank are separate entities, De Nevares's Argentinian counsel ﬁled a

                                         9
"Request for Clariﬁcation" before the Labor Trial Court. The Labor Trial Court

transferred the request to the Labor Appeals Court, over Citibank's objection. De

Nevares joined the Request for Clariﬁcation as a nominal party, on his

Argentinian counsel's advice that he would risk prejudice to his interests if he

did not do so.

              In response to the Request for Clariﬁcation, on December 15, 2021,

the Labor Appeals Court ruled that, "[f]or the appellant's peace of mind and in

order to avoid conﬂicts in the enforcement of the claim as to who is obliged to

pay the fees of [De Nevares's] counsel," the Branch and Citibank "were a single

bank." Id. at 735. The court therefore "uph[eld] the appeals ﬁled by [De

Nevares's] counsel and the expert translator in order and scope of the terms of

the ﬁnal judgment rendered . . . on the sentence of payment of CITIBANK NA."

Id. at 736.

       C.     The Contempt Proceedings

              As these events were unfolding, the Branch ﬁled a letter in the

district court requesting a pre-motion conference in anticipation of a motion to

hold De Nevares in civil contempt. The Branch argued that De Nevares violated

the temporary restraining order by joining the Request for Clariﬁcation. De

                                         10
Nevares responded that the temporary restraining order, which barred him from

attempting to enforce the Argentinian Judgment against the Branch, did not

enjoin him from entering a nominal appearance in an action by other parties

against an account titled in the name of Citibank.

            On December 17, 2021, without seeking further brieﬁng, the district

court held a conference and entered an order holding De Nevares in civil

contempt and directing him to withdraw his appearance in the Request for

Clariﬁcation. The court gave De Nevares until December 21 to do so; it ordered

that beginning December 22, he would be ﬁned at least $10,000 per day until he

purged his contempt. Although the district court entered its contempt order

after the Labor Appeals Court had ruled in De Nevares's favor on the Request for

Clariﬁcation, De Nevares successfully withdrew his Argentinian appearance and

did not incur any ﬁne. When the Labor Appeals Court accepted De Nevares's

withdrawal, it also rejected Citibank's application to reconsider its December 15

ruling.

            The Branch moved in the district court on February 15, 2022, for an

award of approximately $85,700 in attorneys' fees and approximately $3,000 in

costs associated with the contempt motion. The Branch argued that the amount

                                        11
of its request was justiﬁed because its counsel had spent substantial time

preparing a full contempt motion which it did not ﬁle because the district court

held De Nevares in contempt based on the parties' letter briefs and oral

argument. On May 3, 2022, the district court awarded the Branch the full

amount of fees and costs it sought. Branch of Citibank, N.A., established in the

Republic of Argentina v. De Nevares, No. 21-CV-6125, 2022 WL 1315587 (S.D.N.Y.

May 3, 2022).

              De Nevares ﬁled three notices of appeal, on March 2, March 16, and

May 12, 2022. 4

                                      DISCUSSION

              We begin with our own jurisdiction. The Branch contends that

under the Federal Arbitration Act's provisions concerning appeals, this Court

lacks appellate jurisdiction over the district court's orders compelling arbitration,

4
        Although the Branch argues that De Nevares's notice of appeal as to the
contempt order was untimely, it does not dispute that De Nevares's notice of appeal as
to the district court's order compelling arbitration and entering a preliminary injunction
was timely. Subject to exceptions not relevant in this case, an interlocutory contempt
order generally merges with and becomes subject to appellate review alongside the
district court's ﬁnal disposition of an action. See Anobile v. Pelligrino, 303 F.3d 107, 115
(2d Cir. 2002) ("[T]his Court interprets an appeal from a speciﬁc order disposing of the
case as an appeal from the ﬁnal judgment, which incorporates all previous interlocutory
judgments in that case and permits their review on appeal.").

                                            12
holding De Nevares in contempt, and awarding attorneys' fees. See 9 U.S.C. § 16.

We need not reach this question, however, because the Branch does not contest

that we have appellate jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1). Therefore, we have appellate jurisdiction to rule on whether this

case is properly before the federal courts under Article III of the U.S.

Constitution. Because (1) the Branch failed to meet its burden to show that, as a

matter of Argentinian law, it is a separate legal entity from Citibank and (2)

Citibank has never sought to substitute itself for the Branch as the real party in

interest, this action lacks adverse parties. For that reason, there was no case or

controversy before the court, as required by Article III, and the district court did

not have subject matter jurisdiction. The case must be dismissed.

I.    Standards of Review

             We review de novo the legal analysis underlying the district court's

decision to deny De Nevares's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). To the extent that the

district court's analysis rested on its determination of Argentinian law, our

review is also de novo. Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., 138

S. Ct. 1865, 1873 (2018); see also Bugliotti v. Republic of Argentina, 67 F.4th 102 (2d

                                           13
Cir. 2023). A court determining foreign law "may consider any relevant material

or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or

admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. 5 We

review factual ﬁndings underpinning the district court's decision for clear error.

Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113.

II.    Applicable Law

              "The most elemental requirement of adversary litigation is that there

be two or more [adverse] parties, meaning that absent a plaintiﬀ with legal

existence, there can be no Article III case or controversy." Fund Liquidation

Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 991 F.3d 370, 384 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142

5
        "At common law, the content of foreign law relevant to a dispute was treated as a
question of fact." Animal Sci. Prods., 138 S. Ct. at 1872 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1, however, a court's determination of foreign law
"must be treated as a ruling on a question of law." Whereas under the common law,
"[a]ppellate review was deferential and limited to the record made in the trial court,"
under Rule 44.1, "[a]ppellate review, as is true of domestic law determinations, is de
novo." Animal Sci. Prods., 138 S. Ct. at 1873. An appellate court, therefore, may
"reexamine and amplify material presented" below or conduct its own research. See id.
(alteration adopted and citation omitted); see also Bugliotti v. Republic of Argentina, 952
F.3d 410, 413-14 (2d Cir. 2020) (explaining that "Rule 44.1 . . . simultaneously requires
law-like appellate review of foreign-law determinations, while maintaining a district
court's ﬂexibility to tailor fact-like methods of inquiry to the needs of the case");
Compañía de Inversions Mercantiles, S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V., 970
F.3d 1269, 1296 (10th Cir. 2020); Palencia v. Perez, 921 F.3d 1333, 1339 (11th Cir. 2019)
("[I]n performing [appellate] review [of a district court's determination of foreign law]
we can conduct our own research of relevant sources.").

                                            14
S. Ct. 757 (2022) (alterations adopted) (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted). "The party asserting subject matter jurisdiction carries the burden of

establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that jurisdiction exists." Doe v.

Trump Corp., 6 F.4th 400, 415 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Landau v. Eisenberg, 922 F.3d

495, 497 (2d Cir. 2019)). Therefore, when the court's subject matter jurisdiction

depends on whether a putative plaintiﬀ enjoys independent legal existence, that

party bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that it in fact exists separately.

              Whether a party enjoys separate legal existence may be a decisive

issue as to whether federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over disputes

involving that party, but legal existence itself "turns on an examination of" the

law of the party's place of incorporation or formation. Fund Liquidation Holdings,

991 F.3d at 386.

              Unlike in other Circuits, in this Circuit, the absence of an adversary

lacking legal existence does not create "an incurable nullity" requiring that a case

be dismissed. Id. at 386; see also Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms.,

S.à.r.l., 790 F.3d 411, 427 (2d Cir. 2015) (Sack, J., concurring). Instead, we have

held, "Article III is satisﬁed so long as a party with standing to prosecute the

                                          15
speciﬁc claim in question exists at the time the pleading is ﬁled. If that party (the

real party in interest) is not named in the complaint, then it must ratify, join, or

be substituted into the action within a reasonable time." Fund Liquidation

Holdings, 991 F.3d at 386.

III.   Application

             We must ﬁrst decide whether the Branch has carried its burden of

showing that it enjoys separate legal existence under the laws of the Republic of

Argentina. We hold that it has not. That takes us to the next question: whether

Citibank, the real party in interest, has satisﬁed the obligation to "ratify, join, or

be substituted into the action within a reasonable time." Fund Liquidation

Holdings, 991 F.3d at 386. Citibank has not sought to join the action as petitioner,

and the Branch has stringently denied that it and Citibank are the same entity.

Citibank has "fail[ed] to materialize" as the petitioner. Id. Therefore, the case

lacks adverse parties and does not present an Article III case or controversy. It

thus must be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

       A.    The Branch's Legal Existence

             The parties do not dispute that whether the Branch enjoys legal

existence separate from Citibank is a question of Argentinian law. Argentinian

                                           16
law applies because the Branch was "established" and operates in Argentina and

it is the Branch's separate existence that is at issue in this case. 6 The parties

disagree, however, as to how Argentinian law treats the Branch.

             The evidence concerning Argentinian law before the district court

consisted principally of declarations by Nicolás Pertiné, a member of the bar of

the city of Buenos Aires and the Branch's general counsel, and Alfredo L. Rovira,

also a member of the Buenos Aires bar and a consultant professor of business law

at the National University of Buenos Aires's School of Law.

             Upon reviewing the foreign-law evidence, the district court

concluded, "in its discretion," that the opinion of the Branch's expert, Pertiné, was

more persuasive than that of De Nevares's expert, Rovira. Branch of Citibank,

N.A., established in the Republic of Argentina v. De Nevares, No. 21-CV-6125, 2022

WL 445810, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2022). For this and other reasons, the district

court held that "under Argentine law, [the Branch] exists as a legal entity

empowered to sue and be sued and therefore has standing to pursue its Petition."

Id. at *4.

6
       For this reason, we do not decide whether the Branch would enjoy independent
legal existence under the law of New York, Citibank's principal place of business.

                                           17
             On de novo review of the experts' declarations and related evidence,

we conclude that the Branch failed to carry its burden of showing it possesses

independent legal existence under Argentinian law.

      1.     Analysis of the Parties' Expert Opinions

             To show that it is legally distinct from Citibank, the Branch relies

primarily on Pertiné's declaration, which the Branch appended to its application

for the temporary restraining order. Pertiné's thesis is that, "[a]s a matter of

Argentine law, [the Branch] has the capacity to sue and be sued in its own name."

J. App'x at 66. His declaration is brief, less than three full pages long, and its

brevity is not a virtue. Pertiné refers to Argentinian statutes in only a cursory

manner; he does not cite any case law or administrative decision.

             Pertiné's declaration asserts the following propositions: (1) the

Branch is "registered as a branch of [Citibank] with the Oﬃce of Corporations in

the city of Buenos Aires," pursuant to Section 118 of the General Corporations

Law of Argentina No. 19,550; (2) the Branch "holds a banking license granted by

the Central Bank of Argentina . . . which regulates [the Branch] as a separate

entity subject to Argentine laws and regulations"; (3) the Branch "is subject to its

own local capital and reserve requirements" and must "prepare and submit its

                                          18
own audited ﬁnancial statements" to the Argentinian central bank, which along

with other Argentinian governmental entities has the right to inspect the Branch;

(4) the Branch is "individually registered with Argentina's National Securities

Commission," which "allows [the Branch] to act as an agent in the local capital

markets"; and (5) "[p]ursuant to Law No. 25,738," the Branch "provides notice on

its website and in its physical locations that [Citibank] is not liable for the

obligations of [the Branch]." Id. at 65-66.

             Pertiné's statements do not substantiate the declaration's thesis that

the Branch has the capacity to sue and be sued. That the Branch is registered as a

branch does not demonstrate that it may sue or be sued in its own name. That the

Branch holds a banking license means simply that the Argentinian central bank

has permitted it to engage in banking. That the Branch is regulated and may be

inspected by Argentinian authorities, including the central bank, does not mean

that Argentinian law deems it an entity that can sue or be sued separately from

the foreign bank of which it is a part. As for the fact that the Branch "must

prepare its own ﬁnancial statements," this comes closer as it at least indicates that

Argentinian authorities have an interest in knowing the local ﬁnancial condition

of the Branch, as distinct from that of Citibank. Nevertheless, this reporting

                                          19
requirement falls far short of showing that, as a matter of Argentinian law, the

Branch can sue or be sued. Finally, the notices the Branch posted pursuant to

Law No. 25,738 do not demonstrate that Citibank is not liable for the Branch's

obligations. A business corporation that is liable for the obligations of its

branches does not escape liability simply by posting signs declaring that it is not

liable.

             Furthermore, Pertiné's declaration also fails to demonstrate that the

Branch enjoys legal existence separate from Citibank. Instead, the declaration

refers three times to the Branch as a "branch" of Citibank. Id. at 64-65. The

Branch may be registered, licensed, regulated, and inspected separately from

Citibank; it may act as an agent in Argentinian markets; and it may sue and be

sued, without ever being anything more than a branch.

             In contrast, Rovira's declaration on behalf of De Nevares is

signiﬁcantly more persuasive, for several independent reasons. Unlike Pertiné,

Rovira is not an employee of a party to this case; instead, he is a scholar and legal

practitioner with substantial academic credentials. Unlike Pertiné's declaration,

Rovira's cites extensively from Argentinian statutes and case law. And unlike

                                         20
Pertiné's conclusion, Rovira's accords with domestic legal authority concerning

the status of the Branch. We address each of these matters in turn.

             Rovira's lengthy curriculum vitae establishes both his expertise and

his independence. He has earned three academic degrees in law, holds a chair in

business law in the School of Law at the National University of Buenos Aires,

and has served as an arbitrator or expert witness in arbitral and court

proceedings, both in Argentina and abroad. In addition to his role at the

National University of Buenos Aires, Rovira has recently taught business law on

a part-time or visiting basis at four other academic institutions in Argentina and

Uruguay. His dozens of publications concern such relevant topics as the

enforcement of foreign judgments, foreign equity interests in Argentinian

corporations, and the prerequisites for foreign corporations to operate in

Argentina. Moreover, although Rovira has been retained by De Nevares as an

expert witness, his relationship to this case is less immediate, and the risk of bias

in his opinion is correspondingly lower.

             As one might expect from a scholar of Rovira's caliber, his

declaration is replete with citations to Argentinian statutes, judicial decisions,

and academic commentaries. The premise of Rovira's analysis is that, in

                                         21
Argentinian law, a branch may be "separated from the parent company," but it is

not "an entity distinct from the parent company. The branch has a certain

juridical autonomy given by the scope of the powers of attorney granted by the

parent." Id. at 280. Likewise, Rovira opines that a branch "is a unit (dependencia)

separate from the parent but it is always the same juridical person." Id. at 283

n.7. 7

             Rovira cites decisions of Argentinian courts that contradict Pertiné's

claims and, moreover, squarely address the question of the Branch's separate

legal existence. First, as to Section 118 of Argentina's General Corporations Law

No. 19,550, Rovira summarizes decisions of Argentina's Supreme Court of

Justice, National Court of Commercial Appeals of the Federal Capital, and

National Court of Appeals in Federal and Administrative Litigation of the

Federal Capital. The statute, he writes, "provides that the company organized

abroad is ruled insofar its existence and format by the laws of the place of

incorporation. And, on the other hand, the branch does not have its own

personality, thus, it is the same company organized abroad that carries out, in a

7
       Although not dispositive, we note that Rovira's observations accord with the
plain meaning of the term "branch," namely, "[a]n oﬀshoot, lateral extension, or division
of an institution." Branch, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

                                           22
decentralized manner a certain activity in our country." Id. at 282 n.6. Then, as

to the regulatory requirement that Argentinian bank branches must maintain and

ﬁle separate ﬁnancial statements, Rovira observes that "the assets and liabilities

shown by the ﬁnancial statements of the branch must be included in the ﬁnancial

statements of its parent because the branch's assets are the parent's assets and the

parent is liable for the branch's liabilities and obligations"; for this proposition, he

cites a decision of the National Court of Commercial Appeals. Id. at 283 & n.7.

Moreover, as to Law No. 25,738, which Rovira notes was enacted to ensure that

foreign banks would continue doing business in Argentina following a domestic

ﬁnancial crisis, he comments that the statute and its implementing regulations

limit branches' liability for their parents' activities only as to "local Argentine

banking transactions," not as to "other transactions or obligations of [a] diﬀerent

nature," such as the Argentinian Judgment. Id. at 284-85; see also id. at 316.

             Most squarely on point is Rovira's analysis of a 2009 case involving

Citibank. See id. at 281 n.4 (discussing Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo

Comercial [National Court of Commercial Appeals], 19/11/2009, "In re Equity

Trust (Company) Argentina SA c. Zavala, Horacio Raúl," LL Online:

AR/JUR/57701/2009). In that case, a plaintiﬀ sued a defendant claiming

                                           23
entitlement to payment of a promissory note the defendant had issued in favor of

"Citibank NA, Sucursal Buenos Aires" ("Citibank[,] N[.]A[.,] Buenos Aires Branch"),

which "Citibank NA" later endorsed in the plaintiﬀ's favor. Id. The defendant

moved to dismiss on the basis that Citibank could not legally endorse a

promissory note payable to Citibank NA, Sucursal Buenos Aires, because the two

were distinct legal entities. Id. The National Court of Commercial Appeals held

that there are "no diverse juridical persons among the parent and its branches

since in all cases it is the same juridical person, the branch being just a separate

unit of the same parent." Id. "Furthermore," the court continued, "the branch's

net worth belongs to the parent and as a consequence thereof the parent must

bear the branch's obligations . . . ." Id. Thus, Rovira concludes, the court

"expressly rule[d] that Citibank N.A. and its Argentine branch [are] one single

entity, dismissing the allegation that the parent and its Argentina branch could

be treated as separate and distinct juridical persons." Id. at 281. 8

             The statutes, regulations, and decisions Rovira cites weigh strongly

against the hypothesis that, under Argentinian law, the Branch enjoys legal

existence independent of Citibank. Critically, Rovira's declaration is the only

8
     Moreover, although Rovira's declaration does not cite the decision, the Labor
Appeals Court in this case ruled that the Branch and Citibank are not distinct entities.

                                            24
expert testimony the district court had that actually presents sources of

Argentinian decisional law, and Argentinian courts applying Argentinian law

have held that the Branch is "just a separate unit of [its] same parent," Citibank,

and not a separate legal person. See In re Equity Trust, supra (cited in J. App'x at

281 n.4).

             Although Argentinian law controls this issue, we observe that a

court in the Southern District of New York has reached the same conclusion as a

matter of United States law. In Aurelius Capital Partners, LP v. Republic of

Argentina, the court decided whether orders of attachment against Argentinian

government assets held in accounts at the Branch fell within an exception to

immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applicable to the

attachment of "property in the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a). See Nos. 07-

CV-2715, 07-CV-11327, 07-CV-2693, 09-CV-8757, 09-CV-10620, 2010 WL 768874,

at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2010). The court observed that the Branch "is registered to

do business in Argentina, but is not a separate corporation. It is simply a branch

of the United States corporation." Id. at *2. The court also commented that "there

is no entity known as 'Citibank Argentina' in any legal sense." Id. at *3.

                                          25
              For these reasons, we conclude that Rovira's declaration not only

rebuts Pertiné's but makes a compelling case that, under Argentinian law, the

Branch lacks independent legal existence.

         2.   The District Court's Analysis

              The district court's conclusion to the contrary was erroneous. The

district court improperly weighed the foreign-law evidence and incorrectly

considered the United States' policy of "strongly favor[ing] resolving disputes by

giving eﬀect to valid arbitration agreements." Branch of Citibank, 2022 WL 445810,

at *5.

              As to the parties' submissions concerning Argentinian law, the

district court gave little reason for ﬁnding Pertiné's declaration more persuasive

than Rovira's. Other than citing its "discretion" to credit one party's expert over

another's, id., the district court did not address the shortcomings of Pertiné's

declaration, nor did it identify any ﬂaw in Rovira's. 9 To the extent the district

9
       The district court erred to the extent it considered its determination of
Argentinian law to be a matter of "discretion." Branch of Citibank, 2022 WL 445810, at *5.
Instead, the district court's task was to weigh the foreign-law evidence, conduct its own
research if necessary, and reach a legal conclusion. See, e.g., Animal Sci. Prods., 138 S. Ct.
at 1872-73. Moreover, the district court was not in a better position than we are to assess
the experts' credibility, because the district court did not hold a hearing and based its
decision on written declarations.

                                             26
court addressed the substance of Rovira's analysis, it distinguished the Equity

Trust case, in which the National Court of Commercial Appeals expressly held

that the Branch and Citibank are a single entity, on the ground that that case

involved a promissory note rather than an arbitration agreement. "As is the case

under United States domestic law, Argentine law may treat branches as separate

entities under certain circumstances," the district court observed, but it gave no

reason why the answer to the question of the Branch's separate existence should

be any diﬀerent with respect to a promissory note, or why the Equity Trust

court's holding is otherwise not applicable here. Id. at *4. Indeed, as De

Nevares's counsel pointed out at oral argument, both a promissory note and an

arbitration agreement are contracts.

             Moreover, the district court commented that, in reaching its

determination of Argentinian law, it gave signiﬁcant weight to the fact that "at

the core of this action is a valid arbitration agreement that applies to this

dispute." Id. at *5 (footnote omitted). Citing the United States' policy of favoring

arbitration, the district court observed that "[t]his policy also counsels in favor of

not dismissing this action at this stage." Id. While the district court's statement

of U.S. law was not inaccurate, the district court's task was, as it recognized, to

                                          27
reach a determination under "the law under which the corporation was

organized," here, "Argentin[ian] law." Id. Thus, it was error for the district court

to take U.S. policy in this respect into account.

             For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred and that

the Branch did not meet its burden of showing that, under Argentinian law, it is

a legal entity separate from Citibank. 10

      B.     Citibank's Status in This Case

             In Fund Liquidation Holdings, we reaﬃrmed the basic principle that a

plaintiﬀ without legal existence cannot have Article III standing; we also

addressed the possibility that, where a named plaintiﬀ lacks legal existence, the

real party in interest might be able to join the action in the named plaintiﬀ's

stead. See 991 F.3d at 386. Fund Liquidation Holdings arose after two Cayman

Islands investment funds, representing a class of similarly situated investors,

purported to sue dozens of banks over an alleged scheme to manipulate interest

rates. Id. at 375. When suit was ﬁled, however, the putative plaintiﬀ funds had

10
       We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that documents De Nevares
executed at the time he took up his position with Citibank in New York stated that the
Branch is a "diﬀerent employer" from "Citibank, N.A[.,] New York Branch." J. App'x at
101. "[L]ack of federal jurisdiction cannot be waived or overcome by an agreement of
the parties." Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934).

                                            28
been dissolved, and the banks subsequently discovered that "the case was

actually being prosecuted by a separate entity, Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC,

which assert[ed] that it was assigned the dissolved entities' claims." Id. After the

district court had decided motions to dismiss, the plaintiﬀs moved under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 17(a)(3) to substitute Fund Liquidation Holdings for the dissolved funds.

Id. at 377. 11 The district court found that the dissolved funds had fully assigned

their interests to Fund Liquidation Holdings and, therefore, granted the motion

to substitute. Id.; see also FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund, L.P. v. Citibank, N.A.,

No. 16-CV-5263, 2018 WL 4830087, at *11-*12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018).

               We held that the Cayman funds lacked standing, see Fund Liquidation

Holdings, 991 F.3d at 384, and we expressly rejected the proposition that

"corporate existence has no valence apart from the issue of corporate capacity to

sue," id. at 382 (alterations adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). Instead, we held that Fund Liquidation Holdings had standing to sue

because

11
        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 requires, in pertinent part, that "[a]n action
must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1).
Nevertheless, "[t]he court may not dismiss an action for failure to prosecute in the name
of the real party in interest until, after an objection, a reasonable time has been allowed
for the real party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted into the action." Id. 17(a)(3).

                                               29
              Article III is satisﬁed so long as a party with standing to
              prosecute the speciﬁc claim in question exists at the
              time the pleading is ﬁled. If that party (the real party in
              interest) is not named in the complaint, then it must
              ratify, join, or be substituted into the action within a
              reasonable time.

Id. at 386.

              We have not yet applied Fund Liquidation Holdings to another case

involving a party lacking legal existence. See Nastasi & Assocs. v. Bloomberg, L.P.,

843 F. App'x 413, 414 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (remanding for

reconsideration in light of Fund Liquidation Holdings where a named plaintiﬀ had

assigned its claims to another party).

              Applying Fund Liquidation Holdings, we conclude that because the

Branch has not shown it is an independent legal entity, Citibank is the real party

in interest. Citibank is the entity with which De Nevares signed his employment

and arbitration agreements; it is the entity that terminated De Nevares's

employment, giving rise to his Argentinian cause of action; it is the judgment

debtor in Argentina; and it is the entity against which De Nevares's Argentinian

counsel and expert translator sought to enforce their portions of the Argentinian

Judgment. Moreover, Citibank would have had Article III standing to ﬁle the

Petition at the time the Petition was ﬁled in the Branch's name: Citibank would

                                          30
be injured by any attempt by De Nevares to execute the Argentinian Judgment,

that injury would be fairly traceable to De Nevares's conduct, and the injury

could be redressed by the relief requested in the Petition. See, e.g., Mhany Mgmt.,

Inc. v. County of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581, 600 (2d Cir. 2016).

             Unlike Fund Liquidation Holdings, however, Citibank has not

moved to substitute itself into this action. Far from it: The Branch's theory of the

case, from the ﬁrst few pages of the Petition onward, has fundamentally been

premised on the claim that Citibank and the Branch are distinct entities. See, e.g.,

J. App'x at 17, 42, 72-73, 338-39, 427-32, 632-38, 649-50, 748. This has also been

Citibank's fundamental premise in the Argentinian litigation. Accepting

Citibank's premise, when the district court issued its temporary restraining

order, it expressly prohibited De Nevares from making "any eﬀort to enforce the

[Argentinian] Judgment against [the Branch] or any of its assets based on the

claim that [the Branch] and [Citibank] are not separate entities for such

purposes." Id. at 216. At oral argument, the Branch continued to take the

position that it and Citibank are distinct entities. 12

12
      See Oral Argument at, e.g., 23:28-41, 24:10-40, Branch of Citibank, N.A. v. De
Nevares, Nos. 22-424, 22-1803 (Mar. 16, 2023), https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/
isysquery/0ﬀ86e44-542b-4471-a8f6-4145087534bc/1/doc/22-424.mp3.

                                           31
                We conclude, therefore, that because the Branch has not shown it

enjoys independent legal existence and Citibank has not sought to substitute

itself or join this action as the real party in interest, there has been no party

adverse to De Nevares. Without adverse parties, there can be no subject matter

jurisdiction under Article III. See, e.g., In re 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584,

587 (6th Cir. 2016) ("There is no plaintiﬀ with standing if there is no plaintiﬀ.");

see also 13 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3530 (3d ed. 2023) ("The

most elemental requirement of adversary litigation is that there be two or more

parties.").

                                    CONCLUSION

                For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition. Therefore, the district court was

without authority to issue its orders in this case. The district court's orders --

including its order to compel arbitration, the preliminary injunction it entered

against De Nevares, its order ﬁnding De Nevares in contempt, and its order

requiring De Nevares to pay the Branch's attorneys' fees and costs -- are therefore

REVERSED. The case is REMANDED with instructions to dismiss for want of

jurisdiction.

                                           32